VM Enables 'Write-Once, Run Anywhere' Linux Apps

An anonymous reader writes "A startup will soon launch 'a kind of holy software grail,' according to an article at LinuxDevices. The dual-licensed technology is claimed to enable more or less normal Linux applications to run — without requiring recompilation — under Windows, Mac, or Linux, with a look and feel native to each. 'As with Java, Lina users will first install a VM specific to their platform, after which they can run binaries compiled not for their particular OS, but for the VM, which aims to hide OS-specific characteristics from the application. Lina comprises a platform-specific application that virtualizes the host PC's x86 processor... A lightly modified Linux kernel (2.6.19, for now) runs on top of the VM. Under the Linux kernel is a filesystem with standard Linux libraries modified to map resources such as library, filesystem, and system calls to analogous resources on the host platform.' Further details, including an entertaining video or two are at OpenLina.com"

Lofty Goals Indeed

[WrongSizeGlass]

FTA

"We're trying to change the economics of the software industry. Our hope is that in the next two years, all these companies that are starting with Microsoft APIs will start with Linux instead."

That is a key mindset to getting Linux out of its niche and into the mainstream. Thinking Linux first can't be a bad thing at all.

I hope this lives up to its hype (and promise). I may have to finally break down and get an Macintel (much to the chagrin of my PPC army).

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

I read this and the first thing I think is:

"Yay! Yet more Macintosh applications that won't be able to use the Services menu, drag&drop, AppleScript or the built-in spell-checker!"

Cross-platform applications suck because they are only lowest common denominator. I'd rather see more application developers build their applications in something like RealBasic, which allows *true* cross-platform performance and is native on all three major platforms. Any solution around a VM is going to suck, just like Java

Why think Linux first instead of business first?

[TheMCP]

So, let me start with my bias: I work for a tiny company that makes a programming language with interpreted environment (we're working on the compiler now) that runs on Windows, MacOS X, Linux, and Solaris, and I think AIX. (Those are the ones we've actually tried it on, it may run on others.) Our language and development environment facilitates rapid development of web applications. (And anything else you like, but web applications is applicable to this discussion.) Using our language you can write fully A

Will this do what is intended?

[superbrose]

According to the LINA whitepaper [openlina.com], LINA encourages migration to Linux, because commerical OS users will be introduced to countless Linux applications.

I just wonder - if LINA became incredibly popular - would Windows and Mac users really feel compelled to change to Linux? I mean if you could run the vast majority of Linux programs, but still have a few favourite programs that are not supported in Linux (and assuming these don't even run using Wine) then it might be more attractive to keep using LINA and nev

Re:

[that this is not und]

It is the same dilemma (sorta, actually the same dilemma 'in reverse') that badly crippled OS/2. There was a Windows-16 compatability layer in OS/2. Because of said layer, there was little motivation for developers to come out with native OS/2 ports of applications. This made OS/2 really painful to try to run when all the Win32 apps started rolling out and there was no developed 'customer base' for 32-bit OS/2 versions.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[MrCoke]

What Linux-only games do you want to run on other platforms ??

Re:This won't be useful for a MAJOR market segment

[someone1234]

This is to port linux apps to other platforms. It sure applies to 3D linux apps as well. Of course, it won't be useful to port Windows 3D FPS games to Linux, but that is not a topic here.

Re:

[nxtw]

Linux 3D applications generally use OpenGL. Windows / graphics drivers for Windows support OpenGPL. Therefore, this should be trivial (provided a decent X server / DRI "implementation" is provided)

Re:

[dhasenan]

The issue is running an OpenGL game in a virtual machine. Unless that machine is quite intelligent about it, the graphics are going to go very slowly.

If the VM *is* clever, then you may start seeing Linux-native games using DirectX.

You could improve performance somewhat (a factor of three instead of a factor of ten, maybe) by making a client/server model in which VM applications act as OpenGL clients connecting to a native OpenGL server. You might be able to use memory mapping to improve the speed a bit mor

Re:This won't be useful for a MAJOR market segment

[tuxic]

Please :)
Are PC games crucial in every situation? I think it's naive to believe that there can't be a success for a technology just because it means it doesn't apply for demanding 3D games. I'm sure they can live without PC gamers and focus on the multi-billion dollar companies who want their applications to work seamless no matter the operating system.

Re:This won't be useful for a MAJOR market segment

[bytesex]

True enough. But it's just like porn-sites and the defence industry and velcro, if you get my drift: 3D games have a tendency to produce offspring in 3D rotating multiple desktops and those quivering windows when you move them. And _that_, my friend, a user can never do without.

Re:

[Darundal]

They aren't crucial in every situation, however in this one they are. Gamers are much more likely to be the relatively geeky types who have relatively geeky jobs doing relatively geeky things and making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people. Many of those relatively geeky people with relatively geeky jobs making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people use Windows because their games work in it, so they spend their time using/learning/tweaking/promoting Windows. However, if said

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Humor

[Anonymous Coward]

From the LINA FAQ:

Q: What does LINA stand for?
A: LINA is not an acronym.

Re:Humor

[maxwell demon]

I've heared they renamed MIT. It's now named "MIT Institute of Technology"

From the FAQ

[ozric99]

Q: What programming languages is LINA written in?
A: For performance reasons, we've written LINA in C and C++.

Why not just write the VM in Java, then it'll be truly portable, right? Right..?

Re:

[Aladrin]

That's kind of the question, isn't it? Why are they creating yet another VM when so many already exist and could just be extended and improved?

I hate Java. But it -is- cross-platform.

Also, I get that their goal is to have 'normal' programs run cross platform, without having to be written in Java, .NET, etc. But the programs still have to be recompiled for the VM, which will probably necessitate -some- changes. And most of the programs that people will want to run cross-platform, you can't get the source

Re:

[gEvil (beta)]

Also, I get that their goal is to have 'normal' programs run cross platform

"Cross platform" as long you're running an x86 processor.

Re:

[Aladrin]

Because I've had to program in it. It has all the annoying fiddly bits of C++ and it's slow as hell. Even worse, I was forced to use it for JSP. There's nothing less fun that debugging poorly written code that has to be recompiled in its entirety every time you want to see how a webpage looks now.

Debugging poorly written code in all other languages (that I've used) hasn't been nearly as bad. I jumped for joy when I was told we were going to rewrite the project in PHP.

Re:

[Cyberax]

Actually, it has been done: see Jikes RVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jikes_RVM)

Business case hurdles

[ladybugfi]

>"It's been said on numerous occasions that the big things that are holding Linux back are Adobe [for
>graphics software] and Intuit [for its personal finance software] because they write to Windows, and
>people can't give up those two pieces of software. As soon as companies like that, or companies that
>want to compete with them, start writing to LINA, things are going to change fast."

And how is the likelihood of big software houses starting to write to LINA bigger than big software houses starin

Re:

[DragonWriter]

And how is the likelihood of big software houses starting to write to LINA bigger than big software houses staring writing to Mac or native Linux?

(Almost) everyone making an application wants to be able to get to the Windows segment of the market, since that's where most of the users are. Writing to Mac or native Linux doesn't help with that, so in practice if its done at all, its often done in addition to writing to Windows, and must be justified by the additional cost.

Writing to LINA, ideally, gets you Ma

Native Look and Feel

[zmotula]

run (...) under Windows, Mac, or Linux, with a look and feel native to each

People should realize that this is impossible to do. This sounds like look&feel was something like a skin you can change at will, but it is not. Different systems have different requirements that cannot be changed programmatically, like keyboard shortcuts, icons, file placement, GUI metaphors and so on. If you want an application to feel native, simply design the GUI according to local customs, there is no other way.

Re:

[anilg]

In fact, Java does a pretty good job of keeping the GUI looking same as much as possible on different platforms. Reading through the website, I dont see any feature that makes it anything more than a Java wanaabe.

Any body seen anything apart from this effect?

Re:

[abigsmurf]

Isn't it Swing you use to have a near identical UI on any platform in Java? Been a while since I've used it.

Re:

[The Warlock]

That's just the default. You can trick it into looking kinda-sorta like Win32, OSX, or GTK+.

Re:Native Look and Feel

[Mike McTernan]

Trick maybe the wrong word - changing the L&F is by design with code such as:

try
{
    UIManager.setLookAndFeel(UIManager.getSystemLookAn dFeelClassName());
}
catch (UnsupportedLookAndFeelException ex) {}

While not perfect, it is pretty good. There are screen shots and some of the deficiencies laid out here: http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2003/12/08/swing .html [java.net]

Re:Native Look and Feel

[suv4x4]

People should realize that this is impossible to do. This sounds like look&feel was something like a skin you can change at will, but it is not. Different systems have different requirements that cannot be changed programmatically, like keyboard shortcuts, icons, file placement, GUI metaphors and so on. If you want an application to feel native, simply design the GUI according to local customs, there is no other way.

That's one thing (and you're totally right). And second:

As with Java, Lina users will first install a VM specific to their platform, after which they can run binaries compiled not for their particular OS, but for the VM, which aims to hide OS-specific characteristics from the application.

Which left me thinking... "and unlike Java.. it does what?".

We've got Java, which has matured over the years, we've got .NET / Mono. And we got Cygwin, which allows you to use the Linux API on Windows.

Looks like that startup has agenda to brings more of the Linux API to Windows, and thus help Linux become more mainstream as a development platform. But agenda does not business or money make. They've entered a crowded market, offering little new except impossible promises for native look and feel.

Re:

[dhasenan]

---
if (style == Style.Windows) {
preferences_menu_item.name = "Options";
add_menu_item(preferences_menu_item, tools_menu);
} else {
preferences_menu_item.name = "Preferences";
add_menu_item(preferences_menu_item, edit_menu);
}
---

Then just use Tango icons and icon styles in your application (they look good, though they aren't colorful enough for KDE's typical style or cartoonish enough for OS X's typical style, but I doubt anyo

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention when the preferences are applied. On OS X, preferences should be applied as soon as they are changed (with some minor exceptions), while on Windows you should wait until the user hits 'apply.' On OS X, preferences boxes should have no command buttons; you toggle preferences and then close the window. On Windows, they should have 'apply,' 'ok' and 'cancel.'

That's before we get into major differences, like the fact that controls (tool bars and pallets) are tied to documents on Windows, an

Why...?

[nxtw]

"You have to compile binaries specifically for Lina, but it's fairly trivial, no different than compiling binaries for SuSE or Red Hat."

So it's like UML on Windows using Qt/Windows and Gtk directly? And it runs as a layer on top of Win32??

I'm not sure that this effort is really worth it if you've to recompile. With Qt4/KDE4 more or less all of KDE will operate on Windows. Most major open source applications are already functioning in Windows.

No matter what this thing does, it's still an extra layer betwe

Re:

[Ant P.]

Why don't they make it a subsystem in itself? Right now all this is is CoLinux + X11 integration.

Re:

[nxtw]

Is that really what it is? That would give it binary compatibility with Linux.

There is already a GPLed WINNT POSIX NT kernel subsystem (not updated for a long time), which could be updated to support smp/x64 and integrated with parts of perhaps Linux proper, Solaris lx brand, or FreeBSD Linux compatibility...and if Windows could boot ELF binaries via that layer, with a redirection for system directories yet without having to do funky sharing/mapping for user directories.

But I'd just run Linux or coLinux ins

It's not truly transparent

[Anonymous Coward]

->...you have to compile specifically for it, so it doesn't run legacy linux applications.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6279947776.html [linuxdevices.com]
"In Lina's case, the VM is essentially a Linux environment that supports standard C/C++ applications, or even perl and python, if their respective interpreters are installed. CTO Nile Geisinger explained, "You have to compile binaries specifically for Lina, but it's fairly trivial, no different than compiling binaries for SuSE or Red Hat."
-> how is this better th

Dual licensed - wtf?!

[prestwich]

From their FAQ:

      'A: LINA is dual licensed. For non-commercial users, LINA is available under the GNU General Public License, Version 2.
              If you wish to use it commercially, please contact us to find out more about the LINA commercial license.'

Erm I'm sorry?! You can't stop someone using a GPL licensed program for commercial use.
Do they mean to say that if you want to sell it or do none-free changes then they will sell
you a non-GPL license?

Re:

[dhasenan]

This is an issue if you want to distribute LINA with your application, or at least a possible issue. Note the Classpath exception to the GPL which considers dynamic linking to produce a derivative work.

If this turns out to be a serious issue, we can write a wrapper around standard Qt with a compatible ABI/API so you can just use autotools, develop for multiple Linux distros, and then just test against LINA. Compile it on any Linux you want and deploy on LINA.

Re:Dual licensed - wtf?!

[3seas]

There are several development tools that have such a license. That if you are developing GPL software then the GPL license applies, but if you are developing comercial closed source then you pay.

Though this is a Virtual Machine, not the software that runs on it, you typically have to have some sort of clearance or approval to install and run such software in a large company. And having a paper trail of purchase or licensing fits the traditional business model. So yeah, if they actually produce, it makes since, however...

How long will it be before someone gets the idea to simply put it all on a memory stick and/or live CD/DVD such that they can take it with them, yet run it on top of other running OS's, that would then allow the best of both worlds (let the best app win regardless of OS)....

BTW, a windows version of D-BUS is being developed and in a case like this, it can be what integrates the two system applications. And that is what will make it really useful.

Imagine taking your personal tool box to work that you keep and which adds to your value to the company.
   

Re:

[jedo]

Do they mean to say that if you want to sell it or do none-free changes then they will sell you a non-GPL license?

Yes. The commercial version isn't under the GPL.
This [trolltech.com] is how Trolltech does it.

Qt?

[IceFox]

So it looks like right now it mostly supports Qt with some gtk stuff coming along. Anyone else find that odd? Today you can compile your Qt apps on Linux, Mac and Windows and get native look and feel. Why would I want to wrap that with a vmmachine? Just yesterday I ran across an app written in Qt for HDR imaging [sourceforge.net] that is written with Qt and is for the mac, linux and windows.

Don't forget wxPython!

[kollivier]

You can also use wxPython (http://www.wxpython.org), which seems to start a lot faster than LINA (look how many times the LINA app bounces in the dock before it starts), actually *comes with* Mac OS X Tiger, uses native OS controls whenever possible and as of 2.8.3 has a library called SizedControls which automatically applies OS HIG-compliant sizing and borders to your windows and controls on Windows, GTK/GNOME, and Mac (disclaimer: I'm the author of said library). Plus, unlike Qt and LINA, wxPython/wxWidgets is free for commercial development as well as open source.

So I've been using this 'holy grail' for years, but maybe the VM slowdown and commercial licensing will appeal to some people. :-)

Re:

[IceFox]

Well on the qtfpsgui download page [sourceforge.net] there is binaries for linux, windows and OS X. Amarok recently was made to work on Windows http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/374-Amarok2-bu ilds-on-Windows.html [kde.org] As for Konversation, Kopete and K3b they will also be available on OS X and windows once KDE 4 is out.

Just what we need...another VM..

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a world where everyone wrote software for virtual machines - the problem occurs when people write software for different virtual machines. Eg: if Pidgin was written in Java, Firefox in Mono and GNOME in Python, to run my ordinary desktop I would suffer the overhead of 2VMs and an interpreter.

Besides, its not hard to write cross-platform C++ code.

Re:Just what we need...another VM..

[master_p]

VMs should not exist. Source-code level compatibility is more than enough to make cross-platform applications. The only benefit of a VM is run-time optimizations, as the code is translated.

VMs exist because no one dared to a make a C++ like language that guarantees source-code level compatibility in all platforms and has garbage collection.

And the premise "write once, run everywhere" is totally flawed. If you have N architectures, you need N virtual machines. If you go the direct route (i.e. no VM), then you need N compiler back-ends. Since the virtual machine is actually a compiler back-end (only executed lazily), I see no benefit from using VMs.

Dependencies?

[ndogg]

I don't understand how it deals with dependencies, especially for GUI applications for that "native L&F." I could understand statically compiled binaries, but it obviously must use some shared objects on the OS because in the introduction video, Windows still required Cygwin.

I don't doubt that this will be useful, but there's just too much hype surrounding it right now, and I can't tell the difference between the truth and the embellishments.

Re:

[ndogg]

I really hope this pans out, but my skepticism bells are ringing like crazy.

I guess we'll see what's there when it comes out.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

write once, test everywhere

[192939495969798999]

If you compile different versions, or if a machine automatically translates for you, that doesn't mean you don't have to test on different platforms. If you expect to have a robust product that runs on linux, windows, and mac, you have to test it on all 3. I think people are confused that this will somehow eliminate that step, so you'd save yourself some time. If it's all one source base, then you'll have tons of stuff like this:
-if running mac, then do this fix, if running windows then do some other fix, if running linux then do some third fix
so either your code gets very large and unweildly, or you have 3 different versions and let them branch a bit. Either has advantages and drawbacks, but neither is what VM promises in theory.

Remember: "in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is."

For the love of God, why?

[Noiser]

I can understand the hack value, but why, for the love of God, would i want to run binary Linux apps on Windows? Didn't they have anything better to waste four years on?

There are some binary Windows apps, which could make life easier (albeit somewhat unethical in FSF terms) for Linux users, such as MS Office and IE6, and AFAIK that's what WINE is for (although i've never had the dire need to actually try it). But vice versa??

All the FOSS Linux apps that are source portable - OpenOffice, Perl, Mozilla, SVN, Audacity etc. - already found their success on the Windows platform. Is someone weird enough to make an application which is binary-only *and* Linux-only?

Or am i missing something?

MS should buy this immediately

[anwyn]

If MS had half a brain they would buy this company immediately! This could work like wine in reverse! MS could say to the suits, "you don't have to migrate away from our wind-turd OS, you can buy this emulator!" The suits are too stupid to realize that they would be missing the most important advantage of Free Software, namely freedom, but the suits would like not having to convert their powerpoint presentations to open office!" This is horrible news!

Write Once, Run Nowhere seen in market again

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm sorry, but the number of times I've seen the "Write Once, Run Anywhere" claim made for new "paradigms" is fairly scary. There are limitiations to all of these approaches. In this case, running software in complete OS emulation mode denies access to hardware features that have not been successfully ported to the virtual environment, enforces limits of the particular underlying VM hosting operating system in fascinating ways, and absolutely punishes the performance of any disk-accessing operations.

There are uses for virtualized environments, but they're hardly a new approach to code portability.

Yea but Java's soon GPL.

[sudog]

If Java's GPL then why do we need another Java?

wtf? Barring commercial use of GPL soft?

[sudog]

From http://www.openlina.com/faq.html [openlina.com]:

Q: What license is LINA released under?

A: LINA is dual licensed. For non-commercial users, LINA is available under the GNU General Public License, Version 2. If you wish to use it commercially, please contact us to find out more about the LINA commercial license.

How can they expect to bar commercial *use* of Lina when it's a GPL'd software product--unless their software must be embedded in the end executables?

Meanwhile, the video describing Lina is terrible. It shows (in a ridiculously puny window) two people installing an Apache-backed *WEB APPLICATION* onto two apparently different systems: a Linux machine and a Mac machine. What's the point of that when a PHP-backed application will do just as well and is nearly as simple use? (And what needed Lina? Apache? The web app itself? Both? Beats the hell out of me.)

There's no word on actual performance of Lina binary applications either, and while they claim additional "security," the reality is that complexity does NOT breed security, and Lina is yet another layer which must be maintained, secured, configured, and reconfigured.

Java already provides all or nearly all of this, and targetting development at Lina would be a massive re-tooling. It would also appear that the LINA PDF is internally inconsistent on the matter of whether legacy *binaries* or just legacy *apps* would run under a Lina host. I'll guess that everything must be recompiled specifically for Lina for it to work properly.

Quite frankly, once Java's GPL'd code is ported to the missing OSes it needs to be ported to, there will be no barrier to Java adoption anymore. Plus, commercial devs can still create independently-licensed Java applications without worrying about Lina demanding their cut for commercial development under Lina.

I won't comment on vapor-ware

[Zarf]

Am I "net-blind" or is there no where to download this thing? Google around for "Download Lina" produces hits on some MP3s and some hits on the Lina logo. If there is a download version of this project I can't find it.

On the matter of the product itself:

From the videos on the website it sounds like Lina is a new type of VM for C/C++ code similar to the JVM. If that is the case I can easily contain my excitement and hope these guys have a good marketing department. The technology is not 10x better and as such will have a long road to success.

If you can write to Lina and distribute Lina "binaries" or native binaries (that is "exe" on windows) I don't think you'll see much resistance to Lina as a product. You may not see much fervor over it either though.

If you can recompile a Linux project and distribute either "Lina binaries" or native binaries for a program then I think we have gold here. I'll be very excited and it means that Linux could morph into a kind of super Java style API for all Operating Systems... a sort of meta System V.

If all Lina does is provide a VM to write to, (which is what I suspect), then Lina's success is going to be a matter of marketing. But not traditional big marketing... it will succeed on a combination of smart technologist marketing and viral marketing. If Lina has that it might carve out a niche for itself.

The question is, true believer, can Lina make your heart flutter like Linux, Ruby, Python, or PHP did? If it doesn't learn to make your heart go pitter-patter then I it will have to find a way to cut deals to make you want to learn to dance with Lina. Maybe folks at dLoo can cut a few deals that move a critical mass of developers over to the Lina side of the force.

I don't know if I like Lina or not, I haven't even met her. With a hook like this on Slashdot today would have been the perfect time for me to meet Lina and maybe have dinner. As it stands, I'm a desirable geek and get lots of young new technologies interested in my time and attention. I've got Beryl that I'm hanging out with right now, some python code from Numenta that keeps calling me back and looks mighty nifty, I've got new FX-y tech I'm going to spend some time with too... And, that's just this weekend. I may not notice Lina again. I'm sure she's a nice girl with great personality but... the other tech I can meet and talk to right now and Lina didn't even give me a month and day to get back to her on.

Re:Huh?

[eldavojohn]

Why are people afraid of recompiling? It is pretty painless if the source is packaged well.

If you can get my mom to understand that sentence, I will pay you $500.

Also in how far is this groundbreaking? Seems to be a pretty forward and not too complicated engineering task.

Interestingly enough, the word 'groundbreaking' was not used even once in the summary or the article. News doesn't have to be groundbreaking. It could be a very simple old idea used in an ingenious way to be a very useful tool for the masses. Like this, they aren't hiding that they're kind of copying what Java does. But, you know, if it was such an easy engineering task, why haven't you done it? I'm very interested in where this goes.

Re:Huh?

[eean]

The users don't have to compile silly.

With something like Qt, its "write once, compile three times". Distribute binaries for Linux, OS X, Windows. All with a native look and feel, using native compilers and libraries.

Its not clear how this thing works with the GUI. Is it a new toolkit? Is it a hack of the Gtk toolkit? (I thought it was funny how the demo talks about the "native Gtk looknfeel from within what looks like KDE).

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you can get my mom to understand that sentence, I will pay you $500.

Believe it or not, this isn't as difficult as it's made out to be. The biggest barrier would be convincing your mother that she should know, rather than having her simply say "This is too complicated!" at the first hint that she might actually have to learn something.

But seriously, if you give me a half hour or so with your mother, I will be able to get her to understand it, so $500 is a pretty generous offer. And I could use the money

Re:Huh?

[FishWithAHammer]

"Dear user: Insert the CD. Type make all; make install. Press return and go for coffee."

It should be

"Dear user: Insert the CD. Click 'Install'. Click 'OK' and go for coffee."

See the difference from a user's point of view?

Re:Huh?

[LiquidCoooled]

Insert CD.
Phone relative because the CD does nothing.
Find Install and click it.
Cancel the dialog and click the other install.
Phone relative again and ask them why its going to take 3 hours.
Make coffee.
Return to computer and switch it off (thinking they were switching it on because the screen was blank)
Ring relative and ask why its not worked.

Re:Huh?

[ZorbaTHut]

Actually, most Windows apps take advantage of autoplay, which means it really is "put the CD in, push the big flashing button that pops up, click next a whole lot because none of that text could be important, wait".

To my knowledge, Linux doesn't have autoplay. While I agree that autoplay is awful, it does make things easier for endusers.

I don't know if OSX has autoplay or not, but in any case with OSX it tends to be "put disc in, double-click the disc icon that just showed up". I haven't seen any equivalent for Linux - you usually have to find the install program or similar. God help you if you have a package manager - then you have to search for what you want to install!

People's brains freeze up when confronted with a computer. They'd much rather just put a shiny disc in and let the magic computer do its work. Seriously, you could sell "Linux application install discs" which are just a pack of CDs where each one has "aptitude install gimp", maybe a hudnred bytes each, and people would buy them.

Re:Huh?

[cheater512]

Considering I've never ever installed a program from a cd under Linux dont you think autoplay would be useless? :P

I think package management is far superior to cds. For one you cant lose your package management and spend half a day looking for it.

Re:Huh?

[ZorbaTHut]

Most people, I suspect, want plastic discs to install software off. It's far easier conceptually to deal with. Linux really doesn't handle that case well.

Personally, I agree - I vastly prefer package management or online downloading. I suspect there will be some user re-training needed to get most people to understand that, however.

Re:

[aldousd666]

Well, I'm not so sure I buy that whole round plastic thing :) But I think your intentions are good. I see plenty of people go online and click that little icon that says 'you must install this and ten other spyware executables, for which you cannot sue or, and you'll get spam, click ok to to play OUR version of solitaire which has prettier seashells on the cards.' Or you know, snood, which expires, and forces my mom and sister (not computer types) to learn how to uninstall it, and download a new copy ever

Re:Huh?

[toddestan]

Ah, you've used Windows, I see. Installing things is much easier on pretty much every other platform (including macosx, most of the linux-based platforms, and most of the BSDs).

What are you talking about? One of the big problems in the Windows world right now is that applications are so easy to install, that the user often has to run special software just to keep applications them from installing all by themselves!

Re:

[asuffield]

Except when you stumble upon something that doesn't work so easily, and casual users are told to change some text in some config files and type things that they don't know what the meaning is in the console.

On Windows, they get told to change some text in the registry and type things they don't understand into cmd.exe. Where's the difference?

Re:Huh?

[alexhs]

install.sh
----------
#! /bin/bash
make && make install

What was your point, again ? Oh yes, there is no "Click 'OK' " step, do you care ?

Re:Huh?

[FishWithAHammer]

I'll say it very simply.

Do not force end-users to the command line.

Re:Huh?

[AusIV]

I'll say it very simply.

Do not force end-users to the command line.

This mentality bothers me. While the command line is intimidating at first, and end-users should never have to learn how to navigate the command line, if I'm giving instructions, I would much rather have someone using a command line.

For example, a few months back, my girlfriend wanted me to put Linux on her computer. She was saving up for a Mac, and her anti-virus had expired on Windows. She needed a web browser, office suite (She used OpenOffice on windows to begin with), and an instant messenger. I had her install Kubuntu, answering a few questions when she had them. Once it was installed, I pulled up a terminal to start installing some programs and codecs with apt. She was deathly afraid of learning the terminal, so I started stepping her through the installation with Adept Installer. The instructions for installing Flash went something like this:

- Click the "K"
- Click add/remove programs
- Type your password
- Check the box next to "unsupported"
- Check the box next to "Proprietary software"
- See where it says "KDE"? Click the down arrow and select "Any Suite"
- Type "flash" in the search box
- It's not in multimedia? Try "Others" I guess.
- Check the box next to "Macromedia Flash Plugin"
- Click "Apply Changes"
- When it's done, click "quit"

Alternatively, I could have told her:
- Click the 'K'
- Hover your mouse over 'System'
- Click 'Terminal Program (Konsole)'
- Can you remember that? Next time I may just say "Open a Terminal"
- Type "sudo aptitude install flashplugin-nonfree"
- Type your password

I explained to her that I didn't expect her to learn how to use the command line on her own, but it's a lot easier for me to tell her a command when I'm giving instructions. She hasn't used the terminal once on her own, and she's enjoyed perusing the programs available through Adept Installer, but she knows if I have to give her an instruction, it will be a lot easier to use the command line.

I realize it's initially intimidating for users to have to open a terminal, and I'd like to see graphical interfaces for everything a normal user would need to do, but I also wish we could get the average user to where they realized the set of instructions is a lot shorter when someone gives you a command than when they have to explain dozens of clicks.

Re:Huh?

[Tickletaint]

Telling people how to fix problems fosters dependency on you. Showing them how to do it, in a manner that doesn't take years of command-line dorkdom to understand, is probably far more helpful.

Though in this particular case, if your girlfriend's about to get a Mac anyway, maybe it doesn't matter so much. I'd be more worried about getting dumped once she realizes she doesn't need you to fix her computer anymore. :)

Re:Huh?

[the_mushroom_king]

This is slashdot. You lost me at "girlfriend".

WTF is that?

Re:Huh?

[TheWanderingHermit]

I would much rather have someone using a command line

And therein lies the problem. You would rather have them using a command line. They don't want to. When you have a GUI, you always have prompts and a safety net. You can say, "Click on the button that says 'Change Setting.'" They have an automatic double check because there is something that matches, exactly, what they're being told to do. They have limited choices because they're working from a menu or from components and when one matches what they're told to do, they have some kind of confirmation they're pressing the right button. When you say, "Now type this," then you can hit any number of snags and they know it. You can tell them what to do and they can use a single quote instead of a double one or hear the word wrong or mistype it and, from their point of view, they don't know what's going to happen if they make a mistake.

You are much wiser than most developers I've seen post here who want to blame the uses for not knowing everything they know and you've got a good point. You and I can often move much more quickly with a console, but for users, the mere thought of having to type commands is frightening. They're looking at a blank screen with no feedback until they hit and then it could be too late.

You've realized, though, that it isn't about what you or I want, but what the user can handle or take care of on their own. That's the problem: It's our job to give them what they can handle. That is rarely a console. With my clients, before I got my software up to the point I wanted it, I had them install RealVNC on their computer and used a tunneling program I wrote in Java so it would go through their firewalls, then had them add me, and I configured RealVNC so it would only run when they wanted to run it and so it had a strong password. (And before anyone starts screaming, I'm simplifying and leaving out discussions with their bosses and IT departments about safety.) When they had problems, I just had them run RealVNC and add me, then I could fix, in less than 5 minutes, what could take 45 minutes or more if I were telling them what to do. When I finally got my own program to where I wanted it to be, that wasn't an issue anymore since I had enough failsafes they didn't need that kind of help anymore.

Re:why Windows has a 'run' command

[shmlco]

Actually, knowing how to spell hinders typing Linux commands...

Re:Huh?

[morcego]

Lemme tell you a small story here.

When MS released Windows 3 was when it started to become known in Brasil. At the time, there was a TV show called "Confissões de Adolecente" (no need to translate, since the name is not relevant). At the time, there was an episode where the main character was bitching an complaining about having to use a mouse and click on stuff. After all, if he wanted something, all he had to do before was to type the command. Now, he had to search for the icon, click on it, than click on something else etc.

So, to translate your comment into something that really means something (and is actually true), what you mean is:

"Do not force end-users to do something different"

Here is Brazil we have a saying for cases like this, which roughly translates as: "If you change the color of the grass, the mule will starve to death"

Oh How I Wish It Were That Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dear user: Insert the CD. Type make all; make install. Press return and go for coffee."

Your attempt at simplifying building from scratch amuses me. First off, you put the period in your instruction type font which I'm sure my tech inept mother would type into the console. Which would result in:

make: *** No rule to make target `install.'. Stop.

And how would she know to open a terminal? Would she know how to open a terminal?

Second, what about dependencies, how does she know to read the README file or anything else to figure out what she needs to build this source. You don't exactly include all the source of all the libraries you coded with, do you? Rarely have I seen a project coded from scratch with no dependencies.

See, the issue here isn't that she can't be instructed like a monkey to hit a button. The problem here is that if something goes wrong, she's out of luck. I mean, as it is, the concept of double clicking what you downloaded to install it was a tough one to drive home. And even now I worry about her willfully installing viruses or malware on the home computer. Because she just doesn't understand the concept so well. When you ask someone to build from the source, you're pushing them quickly into something they don't understand and it's just going to result in a bad experience. The ease of use for software is actually more important to most people than its efficiency or anything else. Why do you think Java is so popular?

Re:Oh How I Wish It Were That Easy

[dbcad7]

Ok, what I gotta point out for you and whoever first brought up their mom in the whole compiling issue in the first place...

If your mom is technically savvy enough to have created an application that is now to be compiled from source to different platforms then she obviously understands the original sentence.. and the typo... Unless she is a programming savant who creates source code not knowing what it is.

Again.. the original poster was talking about a (developer of an app) (compiling binaries from source) (for different platforms), not an end user or your mom.

Re:

[Ravnen]

It isn't a question of whether there is a need to build from source, but rather why such a need would or wouldn't be a bad thing. In my view, requiring ordinary users to build from source would be a disaster, not only because of potential build problems which they'd have not the faintest idea how to solve, but also because it would add even more variation from one system to the next.

One of the advantages of binary distribution on a unified, binary-distributed platform is consistency. From the application

Re:

[miro f]

would it really be that much of a step for ./configure && made && make install to be compiled into a nice little gui so that gradma can just double click the CD and have it compile (automatically installing any dependencies), install, and then run?

There is no reason why compiling from source should be any more difficult than installing, it's just that no one's gotten around to making a simple graphical compiler.

Although people might complain about why it takes 48 hours to install OpenOffice.

Re:

[bytesex]

You'd need to ship a compiler for every platform with every CD release. That, and some _damn_ clever script inside the autorun to figure out where it is and what it can expect.

Re:

[greenrd]

In practice, for approximately 99% of free software users (and for approximately 99.99% of non-technical free software users), it's usually quicker to install a binary package than to build a package from source. We should not be encouraging Joe Sixpack or Grandma to compile packages from source, generally speaking.

Re:Huh?

[Blakey Rat]

Given, I'm running a PPC machine, but from my experience with open source on Linux and Mac OS X... because something always, ALWAYS, goes wrong the first time you do "configure" or "make?" Always.

Either it's missing some libraries (my experience with GD), or it requires SUDO permissions but the instructions didn't say it required SUDO permissions, or the path its writing to is wrong, or it has a Good Ol American compilation error... something always goes wrong.

If you want to write a GUI to cope with every single possible error in the 'configure' and 'make' process, more power to you. But I doubt it's possible for any computer program to handle every case in an automatic fashion.

Re:Huh?

[Wdomburg]

"Dear user: Insert the CD. Type make all; make install. Press return and go for coffee."

And come back to:

make: *** No rule to make target `all'. Stop.

And that's assuming the user knew enough to open a terminal and navigated to the appropriate directory, which you left out. Let's say after they got that error they look at INSTALL and discover your instructions forgot to include 'configure', and now they get:

configure: error: Enchant library not found or too old. Use --disable-spell to build without spell plugin.

Let's say they go ahead and disable spell-checking, even though it would be a useful feature. They type 'make install' again, like the instructions said, and get:

cp: cannot create regular file `/usr/local/bin/foo': Permission denied

Maybe they're not quite frustrated enough to give up just yet, and they do a google search and discover that you forgot to tell them to run as root. Hurrah! It installed! They type the application name and get

cannot open display 0:0

Whoops, still root. Maybe they realize this (smart user!), exit, and try running again as themselves. Oh, damn, the application installed in /usr/local and there's an old copy in /usr, so they end up launching the old copy instead. Even if that wasn't the case, most users are going to want menu entries and icons without having to set them up manually.

Re:Huh?

[sortius_nod]

This is exactly why linux users get a bad wrap... wake up, seriously, if everyone was a tech guru you wouldn't have a job...

Re:

[TheLink]

Oh cool. So Linux/Unix users are going to blindly run make all; make install for any software?

And people look down at Windows users for blindly installing/running anything.

On a related note: just wait till perl/ruby/python malware starts getting popular. No need to compile, even easier than make all; make install.

Let's see how the AV vendors cope with scripts that look innocuous at first sight, but once in a while do websearches and download malicious code (or grep your email for spam containing malicious c

Re:Huh?

[CdBee]

"download: install: run".

That's what we do! It isn't 1979 anymore and having to compile source code isn't something the average user should ever be expected to do....

Re:

[acidrain]

That's what we do! It isn't 1979 anymore and having to compile source code isn't something the average user should ever be expected to do....

Even more to the point of TFA is that the cost of fixing bugs that arise as a result of porting is not something that a business should be expected to pay anymore either. (Open source is different, some random guy will port it to OS/2 and BeOS because that's what does it for them.)

But what I don't get is how is this better than running VMware or any of the other vi

Re:

[EvilRyry]

But what I don't get is how is this better than running VMware or any of the other virtualization technologies out there? The ability to run linux in a window under windows has been around for ever. Is it their ability to localize the apps gui? That's not really special either.

The new thing about it is that is integrates the application with the host OS. Virtualization usually does not do this.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've had just about enough of you toilet users. If you can't plumb a toilet then you don't deserve to use it. Non plumbers should respect their "does a bear sh*t in the woods" heritage. You'll probably find a tree in the yard. Enjoy.

Re:

[HairyCanary]

That is the norm for Mac OS X applications.

Re:Huh?

[hey!]

Well, recompiling an application doesn't port it to a different OS.

The work needed to abstract the fact that you are running on Windows or MacOS instead of Linux is highly repetitive, and therefore a good target for factoring out into some common -- thing.

The most accepted way for this is to develop a framework with WxWidgets. But what if you don't like the framework? What if you need a different framework? What if your language is not supported by the framework? Integrating a VM to the underlying OS is an alternative.

Another thing that I think is useful in this approach is potentially dealing with coupling of unrelated applications via common library dependencies. If one application requires a later version of a library than another is compatible with, you can't run them both easily on the same machine. Anybody who used non-Ubuntu repositories on Ubuntu has run into this.

Re:gui needs a framework

[Blakey Rat]

Qt if you want a good one.

I'm sorry, have you ever USED a Qt program on anything other than Linux? I've yet to see a single Qt application that doesn't look and behave like ass on Mac OS. (That said, I've never seen a wxWindows one that didn't look and behave like ass on Mac OS either.) My personal favorite is RealBasic, since I've seen RB apps that look and feel native on Mac and Windows, but you'll never get the open source community to use it because it's proprietary.

Re:

[cdrudge]

Can you guarantee me that the source code will compile and operate on what ever the target system is? The point of the VM is that it virtualizes the system that it is running on. It's up to the VM on the host OS to do that guarantee. Once that is done, then all that needs to be done is target the application build to run on the VM, not one of dozens of different OSs or hardware platforms. Sure "Hello World" or your basic application may run fine when you just "make; make install" it, but for something m

Re:

[asobala]

When you get as far as trying it, you'll find out that making the source compile on another operating system is 80% of the work in porting.

Re:

[nxtw]

This thing's main advantage is that it seems not to use X and uses Qt directly on the host, using Qt's native interface...

also, rootless X servers have been around for a long time...

Re:

[nxtw]

seems like the correct term is "multi-window" mode. Xorg supports both

Re:

[smallfries]

Actually with the way that their sandbox sits behind the kernel it sounds more like WINE, but in reverse...

Re:

[polyp2000]

Depends, if it takes off and developers write code for lina then by default those apps will be available for linux. Of course its a pipe-dream but if it became the defacto way to develop new applications its entirely possible that in the future those apps such as photoshop, etc would be able to run.

However it is already possible to write one application and deploy accross OSX, Linux and Windows. Simply write and compile against WineLib .

Re:

[ciggieposeur]

I can't even get applications to run under different versions of Linux without recompilation, given the differences betweeen glibc and gcc over recent years.

I found that to be especially true in the 1998-2002 timeframe, but much less so today. Nowadays all the applications I've run across post-2002 will at least run on all the major desktop Linux variants with minimal hassle. However, embedded systems still tend to require recompiling to the target libc as they don't often ship with multiple versions of i

Re:

[pembo13]

Please don't spread FUD, of if you're serious, please give useful details. Google and other companies have downloadable binaries, so I know it's possible. You should be able to develop on a machine that adheres to the Linux Standard Base and have that run other places without a problem.

A common newcomer mistake

[dbIII]

DLL hell is a Microsoft only problem. There is no reason why you can't have more than one libc apart from a lack of disk space - it works by version numbers to avoid loading the wrong library. Your ten year old binaries will still run in most cases as long as you have the other libraries somewhere on your library path. Some distros have the old libraries neatly packaged as "lib*-compat" so you don't have to find them yourself to get an old binary to run.

Re:

[greenrd]

Actually, Java took off in the enterprise to much greater extent than it took off on the desktop. This might go the same way, who knows.