Will Linux For Windows Change The World? 770
An anonymous reader writes "A month ago, a trial version of a little-known Linux application called 'CoLinux' was released that is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. It's the work of a 21-year-old Israeli computer science student and some Japanese open source programmers; in Israel, analysts are already saying it could help transform the software world." (CoLinux is short for Cooperative Linux; we mentioned this project in January as well.)
Hmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Side by side comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
Even with the KDE shell (via Knoppix), the XP UI is much more polished and 'consumer friendly' than the KDE shell.
Not that the UI is the most important part of Linux, of course. Linux has many more benefits that makes the lack of a polished UI relatively minor, IMO.
Maybe a stupid question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? and How?
Hardware is so cheap, I would just get two boxes.
Landrew, guide me!
but why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder do they appear as networked pcs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:possibly not (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest benefit I see is that people could start running (and liking?) Linux applications without having to make "the big switch." Once they realize that they like Linux better and [hopefully] can do everything they need to under Linux, then the next computer they buy may run Linux alone. It's certainly more elegant and appealing to current Windows users than just telling them they're unsophisticated dolts for not using Linux.
Another way to break the wall? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bundle it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats how you change the world.
Worked well for Microsoft.
Re:Side by side comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
You're comparing twm (an ancient window manager used by basically nobody these days) vs. WinXP (the latest and "greatest" from Microsoft)? Give me a break... A comparable Windows GUI for twm is Win1.0...
Even with the KDE shell (via Knoppix), the XP UI is much more polished and 'consumer friendly' than the KDE shell.
I respectfully disagree. The WinXP UI is much more "fisher price": big primary colors, and almost insulting to look at. Win95/98 was much better. But KDE is prettier than both.
Conquering Windows (Score:0, Insightful)
1.) cleartype fonts
2.) automatic directX compatibility for games
3.) one solid universal gui
It's a pretty short list, and I just don't think this project is filling the gap just quite yet.
But why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either OS can now crash the machine, so the MTBF gets worse. You get to pay both Microsoft and Red Hat. And few people run Linux because they like the desktop applications.
This sounds like one of those "I'm l33t" toys.
The ability to run Windows apps on Linux is far more useful.
Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (Score:2, Insightful)
linix image (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, for various reasons, some geek, some pragmatic, some even business-like, I - a die-hard Windows user/programmer of over 10 years - am interested in Linux. Not to the exclusion of Windows, hoever.
It's not necessary to call us whores. Not all of us. At worst, there are the vast majority who think there is no choice, and they certainly need to be educated. But, having educated myself on the alternatives, I still choose to use Windows, and damned if I will apologize for it. If you want to convert the intelligent Windows geeks, (we're out there, lost in a sea of clue-bies) you might want to consider that we're worth a little respect.
By the way, I'm loading Mandrake on a virtual as I type this.
Re:possibly not (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt this will turn to much, it seems like a toy for geeks.
The IDF is famous for??? (Score:0, Insightful)
in reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
-m
I'm taking bets! (Score:2, Insightful)
Advantage (Score:3, Insightful)
Then convince them that the 95% market share of Windows is not a problem, since the app will run in Windows anyway.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux Under XP? I'm So Non-Excited (Score:1, Insightful)
For the moment, my only computer is an XP box. I'd rather have a Mac, but can't afford one at the moment. I'd also rather run Linux than XP, but there's a couple XP only apps I don't want to give up. Which means that my Dell 4600 is running XP exclusively, even though it has a second drive and even though I'd rather boot in Linux 95% of the time.
After playing around with Mepis, I was immediately impressed, and I'd like to do nearly all of my work in Linux. I don't want to give up my ability to run Windows, though, so what I want is a dual-boot system. Trouble is, I've asked at least one well-credentialed tech person who uses Linux heavily, and he says dual-booting is still fraught with complications.
I guess my question is, why is it possible to have a decent Linux distribution that runs within XP, but it's not possible to take a dual-drive Dell and easily make your system let you choose between XP and Linux atstartup? And why would anyone want to run Linux within XP, if they could simply have a dual boot system? Seems to me, if you just want to get a flavor of what running Linux is like, get ahold of Mepis and give it a whirl. Your next step should be the ability to gracefully install Linux and make your computer a dual-boot system.
To me, Linux under Windows sounds a lot like divorcing your wife but continuing to live in her house.
Re:but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
VMWare is like $300. CoLinux is free.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Couldn't care less. I've never been bothered by my fonts.
2.) automatic directX compatibility for games
This would be a good one. I could go 100% Linux at home.
3.) one solid universal gui
This I don't get. One of the strengths of Linux is options. I don't use a computer the same way as the guy next to me, why should we be stuck with the same interface? I'm incredibly productive in AutoCAD at work, partly because I have customized the interface to exactly the way I use it (to the point where nobody can use my machine).
I know training and support require standardization, but the more you use something, the more you want to make it work the way you like. Standardization breaks this, and makes people less happy and less productive.
And you forgot the most important thing:
4.) Applications!
If I could run AutoCAD on Linux, I would use it at work (for something other than a server). My mother would consider running Linux at her business, if the main application she uses supported it. People read the requirements for the software they buy, and it says "Windows XP", so they run Windows.
Re:whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the second biggest part of the hurdle is customizing the system without having to learn all the nuts and bolts of operating system function. This is *almost* solved, but compared to the rather intuitive and standardized interface that Windows has nothing in the OSS community has been able to match it.
For example, tweaking options for a program should be done via an "options" menu of some kind there is a logical, visual organization to the settings with checkboxes and drop down lists, not a 30+ page
God help you if it's case sensitive or syntactically anal, too; you may never get it right unless you've done it several times before. Your average home user doesn't have the patience to deal with that kind of thing, and until this hurdle is taken down they'll stick with Windows for sure.
=Smidge=
Answer: No (Score:5, Insightful)
How often do we, here at /., ask if a new software development is going to change the world? Constantly. And how often does it? Never.
This is no exception. It's just a sort of more native version of Cygwin. Sure, it could be kind of nifty, but it's not some major breakthrough which will leave the world shocked.
Could people please stop being so melodramatic with their subject lines?
Re:Side by side comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
For mass adoption, oh yeas it is the most important part. Parent post is not exactly off-topic either, considering the Slashdot story asks about Linux changing the world.
Overall, it's a "good thing"... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also see it as a good thing in some corporate environments. Say you have a call center, and all the operatives have been trained to use some program for their task (let's say they're in a credit card environment) and their software is Unix based. Well, porting to Linux could be straightforward. Also for these operators they don't need to access the computer for anything much besides this application... and maybe the web and email to keep in contact with people. So these guys would have Linux desktops. Now there would also be some other administrative people who don't take calls, and who have other tasks. Like payroll, or some other fancy tasks. Maybe these programs were written for Windows, and there is no Linux port planned. Rather than trying to make these programs work through Wine or Crossover Office or something like that the obvious solution is to make Linux run on top of Windows. Then people have the best of both worlds for those kind of operations.
I also see advantages of running CoLinux in a dual boot environmemnt. That is, if you are short on disk space. I presume that CoLinux would run on the same filesystem as Windows. In a traditional dual boot system you might have a 20 gb disk, and split it up two ways - 10gb for Windows, and 10Gb for Linux. Let's suppose you are a Windows fan, and you easily eat up that 10Gb for Windows use, and hardly use Linux, except to 'play around with'. You then have 8Gb of disk space that Windows can't access natively (yes there are third party apps now that get around this) and as such you are short on space. So if Windows and Linux are sharing the same 20Gb partition, then Windows can use more than that smaller partition on those occasions it is deemed necessary (like downloading by broadband that 5Gb linux distribution on X # of CD's).
I don't see it as a "real major" security problem, because I perceive its main target is the desktop, and not for running security-critical applications which could get hacked to shreds. Also that these Windows boxes would be firewalled anyway for Internet access - behind native Linux firewalls on native Linux machines.
Mark.
Why not vmware? One word: laptops (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't do it without a 3.0 Mhz system with 2 Gb of RAM, and at least a 40 Gb disk. I happen to have such a laptop, and I bought it especially for this purpose and paid lots of bucks for it. But my old 1.7 Ghz, 30 Gb, 256 Mb RAM Vaio R505 should be able to handle this...
Motivation from Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
And on a different note, people will get to see the most stable program that Windows has to offer. Even though it may crash a few times, giving Linux a bad name... but it's Windows fault.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:1, Insightful)
2.) Get rid of DirectX altogether, get OpenGL back on track, and take that piece of MS forced upgrading along with it.
3.) Don't even think about it. Some like Gnome, some KDE, others like a more minimalist approach. Focus on interoperability of themes, and such things but don't even suggest ridding one in favour of the other.
Development for Windows weenies (Score:4, Insightful)
And no, a second box is not a solution. "Hardware is so cheap" doesn't cut out the fact that many aspiring coders may not even have $50 (hell, I started at 9, think I had that kind of chash?), may not have the desk space, may not want the extra power drain, may not want to get a second monitor (or a KVM), etc. Just running Linux in a "window" on Windows is very cheap ($0, assuming they already own the Windows machine), provides no physical space/power hassles, and would be rather easy to use.
Again, for some people, switching to Linux, a second box, or dual booting just *isn't a choice*. For those people, CoLinux is a boon. For the rest of us, it's just a sick toy.
Re:Maybe a stupid question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Very importantly, Linux running on Windows can be used to train Windows users on migrating to Linux. No messy dual-booting setups required. Just copy Linux and "click to start".
Secondly, this opens up Linux for sampling to many more interested users who are wondering what the hype is all about. I am not talking about the typical Slashdot geek here. Instead normal people with techie inclinations who want to try out things.
Thirdly, it is an easier way for running pilot trials of Linux deployments in a corporate environment. As no extra servers are required, no extra money needs to be sent. Although administration effort will obviously increase, it won't be to the extent of twice the administration effort of the original Windows server on which Linux is running.
One huge barrier to Linux adoption is that management does not want to do a trial deployment at most times due to the cost involved. This will certainly mitigate that.
EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article Text... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing how all the glory is given to the Israeli, boasting how he's the genius of the group while the other "Japanese programmers" simply helped.
What's even more amazing is that most of the screenshots show Japanese text in the background, indicating that most of the work was done by these "Japanese programmers", while the Israeli is apparently piggybacking along for the ride.
Nothing new there. Just your typical western media bias.
Re:Article Text... (Socre:5, Informative) (Score:1, Insightful)
Bzzzt. Wrong. YOU are a troll. The most cursory of Google searches shows the article appears verbatim as above here [linuxworld.com].
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Much more money in PC games though I'm afraid. And as always, money talks.
Re:whatever (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but many many mor people than not *do* use fonts. Happy with command line? Fine, no one is stopping you. But you don't represent 70 or 80% of the other computer users who do use fonts and do like a nice standardized user interface experience.
But there is one more thing: Embrace the idea of a good standardized user interface for Linux, or quit your bitching about Microsoft /Windows dominence. A good GUI, a good standard installer that handles dependencies with little or no user interaction, and decent usable applications, this is what Linux needs to gain the desktop. Otherwise, enjoy your Microsoft, it'll be here to stay.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
"ClearType" is a Microsoft branding term. The generalized term, subpixel rendering, is definitely supported under XFree86 and x.org. LCDs with multiple layout order of the RGB elements are even supported.
2.) automatic directX compatibility for games
WINE does this, but honestly, while there are a lot of game developers out there that know DirectX, there's nothing particularly magical about DirectX, and it'd be pretty hard to "just" do DirectX without supporting the other chunks of the Windows API (though I guess you could do a "DirectX-like" API). OpenGL is a truly open standard that's widely supported (and preferred by videocard developers), and SDL and its child libraries provide a more modular system than DirectX does.
one solid universal gui
I see why you want it, but it's not going to happen. Too many KDE people like KDE (which is, while not unbreakably, still strongly tied to Qt) and too many people have legal issues with Qt or prefer GNOME for technical reasons.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that necessary, either. Windows users have been using non-Windows widget sets for a long time in major apps -- Lotus Notes or Mozilla or any of the standard Win32 variants, which operate differently over the Win95-WinXP lifetime. People adapt pretty well. Both Qt and GTK are pretty snappy. Both interoperate pretty well today. Two widget sets is hardly a reason for a platform to fall apart.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Fonts are fonts. I use Windows fonts in Linux. They look great. Big deal.
What do you mean by "the window manager have them?" My fonts look fine. In fact, try any recent distribution like SuSE, Fedora Core, Mandrake, etc., and I think you'll get the same impression.
Without DirectX, few games ever make it to Linux. Thats because DirectX is much more than just a 3-D gaming API. It has other features that make games easier to develop for.
OpenGL+SDL does as well.
Without a standard window manager and a standard API to program for (thanks GNOME vs KDE war), there is hardly any incentive for an application developer to go to linux. Sorry, its just too complicated to make it run correctly (across window managers).
Umm, are you implying that an app compiled against Gnome libraries will suddenly break if you try to run it in KDE? Actually, you can just choose the one you like best and develop for it. Copy and pasting will take care of themselves, and with good themes, they can look nearly identical.
What do you mean running properly "across window managers?" Window managers almost certainly could never prevent a program from working properly, unless they draw a border and buttons when they're not supposed to, for example.
So basically, you can't decide if you would want to program for Gnome or KDE, and you don't like the fonts that distros ship by default (even though haven't been an embarrasing smidgen on the Linux desktop for years), so you don't really think it's worth your time to develop for Linux.
I think it's more than fine to just say "hey, I'm doing fine developing for Windows, I don't have any problems with it, so I don't need to switch." So often zealots convince people on Slashdot that you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you run Windows, and while I disagree with your post and reasons for not choosing Linux as a development platform, I think it's totally fine to not choose Linux for no reason other than you're content with what you have :)
Re:But why? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm planning on using it because my moral fiber (constipation:) won't let me screw over VMWare and crack their program, and as much as I hate to admit it Linux is pure crap for home use (games) and piss poor for work use unless you design your network to support other enviroments besides windows (Active Directory).
So, now I can't use it at home because my home PC life is 75% games (as with the general population) that won't work on Linux, and I can't use it at work because management has a hard-on for Windows and won't let me run it legitimately because it breaks implemented policies since it doesn't interact with Active Directory properly.
Now, what is my solution to using Linux in either situation, VMWare or CoLinux. Already established that I won't use VMWare unless I buy it legitimately and I don't want to use linux so desperately that I'm willing to fork over the money to VMWare. Wine(X) is all well and fine except for the fact that it doesn't support (and will never officially support) any gmaes I play because they go for the hit titles and I play games like Hearts of Iron (games so intense in terms of using your head and not your reflexes that your whole family gets a headache when you play it).
Granted, you're correct that it would be more useful to run Windows apps on Linux, but you're missing a little detail there. Windows isn't open source, which means there is no way in hell for a Linux (or otherwise) distribution to ever interact with Windows, within the context of the discussion point, in an efficient manner.
Congratulations Mr. Obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really? DirectX was designed explicitly for games. That means that early in its life, it sacrificed accuracy for speed (compared to OpenGL, which took the opposite approach and didn't really gain speed on consumer hardware until 3D accelerators took off). Even now, DirectX is driven by games and multimedia, not CAD and scientific/engineering requirements. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and in fact it's better for games that it's focused on games and multimedia rather than engineering applications, because the requirements for games are different.
If you're writing scientific software, use OpenGL. If you're writing a (Windows- or XBox-targetted) game, use DirectX.
Oh, yeah, it's also possible to use DirectX and OpenGL together. Like SDL, DirectX is an entire framework, not just a 3D rendering interface. Id and theCarmack use DirectX for input and sound while rendering their 3D visuals in OpenGL.
Re:whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, which version of windows has the standardised interface? Where do you want to go to find the same item on half a dozen windows machines today? The only way you get a standardised interface on windows is if the same person installs the same version of the OS and most of the same applications on all the machines - or if your organisation has a procedure to duplicate this. Even just with the NT branch you need to ask people whether they are running NT4, 2k, XP, 2003 before you can tell them where to find something as simple as the network settings. Once you branch off into the realm of 98, ME etc, you then have to remember a whole different visual map of where things are in menus. I forget lo look for "dial up connections" in "my computer" every time, I expect it to be with the network settings. You don't need server 2003 to duplicate a typewriter, so we are stuck with a confusing array of interfaces from just the one vendor. It shouldn't be a big suprise that a lot of us just drop to the command shell or use key shortcuts almost every time we use someone elses machine. Where do you want to go just to find the file browser icon to click on today?
CDE, KDE, Gnome etc are also only the answer if you want a common GUI environment and you stick it on everyones machine. Linux is a version of *nix, with all the things that entails, a very different way of doing things to MS windows. Being able to pipe just about anything through grep or a thousand other programs would be difficult to put in any easy to read menu - so the command line is essential.
Personally, I would rather have a configuration file that can have comments in it, including commented out previous selections, than some unreadable thing like the windows registry. With many programs it is possible to choose settings which prevent the program from running at all - so you can't even run the program to change the settings to something that will work, you need to reinstall - or try to find out what all the bytes in the binary configuration file are supposed to mean.
It's a case of different forms of memory - visual memory which some people are good at, or being able to remember a method or sequence of events. Being able to group things into sets should work - but it doesn't because menu options either cannot or are not sorted into logical groups, and the location of items in menus differs between programs and versions. Syntax can be looked up - menu options need to be hunted down and found unless the help system is better and more up to date than in most programs available.
The differences between the systems make it a pointless exercise to have a slavish copy. If the users can launch their applications the same way, and the applications behave the same way, that is a good thing. If anything else needs to be done you need a vague idea of how the systems works, so admin tools that pretend to do the same thing are confusing - you'll go looking for a defragger or scandisk. Showing first year engineering students how to do simple graphs in MS Excel (no, they weren't stupid, it only appeared that way since the program is NOT intuitive) made it clear to me that even using computers the MS way is not easy - computers ARE hard things to use and most people are lazy enough to think that the MS skills they took so long to learn are all they need to know - but it is specialized knowlege that only applies to a given array of menus. Even macs are not obvious. I had trouble on a iMac just starting up a dial up connection - obvious once you know what the icon is, but unfindable in the manuals.
To sum up, it's all different - but MS doesn't have a standard interface. If go so
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
2.) DirectX is a MICROSOFT ONLY format. It will never, ever, be in any linux distro except in emulation form. And for second, why should it be? OpenGL is fine and great, and with 2.0 coming out you can stuff DirectX where the sun don't shine.
At its very core, DirectX is just a set of APIs. Yes, it's a Microsoft API, but the exposed interfaces are well documented, and ignoring any possible legal issues, it is entirely possible to write a DirectX implementation on another platform. Okay, some of you may disagree on whether or not DirectX is well documented, but it's documented well enough for emulation purposes.
There are wrappers [v3x.net] available that translate Direct3D calls into OpenGL calls (similar to Glide wrappers from the 3dfx days), and I don't see any technical problems with removing the OpenGL layer and having the new Direct3D implementation call the graphics card directly. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think Linux 3D graphics drivers are currently all proprietary, so nVidia and ATI would have to provide the Direct3D layer.
Still, even with an emulation layer, why SHOULDN'T DirectX run on Linux? Ignore legal issues and Microsoft's desires. Believe it or not, there are some developers who've only used DirectX and not OpenGL+SDL. It's worth having DirectX on Linux even if only a tiny fraction of those developers decide to port to Linux. That fraction may grow, and after familiarizing themselves with Linux they may switch to other APIs that are better supported on Linux, such as OpenGL and SDL.
One word: (Score:4, Insightful)
Distributions put these things together for end-users to enjoy, and any recently updated distro worth it's beans has either Gnome 2.4 or the Bitstream Vera fonts. In my not-so-humble opinion, they are far superiour to the fonts in Windows. Unfortunately, however, they look pretty horrid in Windows, if you ask me.
Don't you think you're being pretty unreasonable saying Linux w/KDE or Gnome is unsuitable for anything like this (fonts) when it's already been addressed? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, download a better distro plz.
Woot... watch out for MS service packs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to click on a single file and have a fairly standard installer sequence pop up would be ideal for GUI, but I'd even settle for a standard CLI method, hold the endless switches and dependencies please.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's my opinion on fonts.
Can I read the fucking document?
The font is fine.
I don't care if it's German Gothic or whatever that weird one is called.
I have never understood people's - especially font makers - obsession with twiddling pixels to make one letter different from another. It's the same psychosis as many geek bit twiddlers.
We used typewriters with one or two lousy fonts for decades, for Baron von Christ's sake!
We DO NOT - even with the desirabiliy of choice being a given - NEED six hundred or six thousand different fonts on a PC.
If you type in 48-point, maybe you'd notice some of this stuff, but for the average user who is not a graphics art student, it's utterly irrelevant.
Yes, a font should be easily readable and look fairly sharp. Beyond that, it is an utter waste of time and money. You have more important things to worry about.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever since XFT2/fontconfig and the Bitstream Vera fonts have been released, I've been enjoying high-quality, subpixel antialiased fonts on my Linux desktop computer. I suggest you to upgrade to a modern distribution and use the Vera fonts.
Alternatives are not going away. What's wrong with making both GNOME and KDE so userfriendly that the user can find it's way no matter which desktop he's using?
Some people prefer simplicity while other people prefer power and bells & whistles. What's wrong with being able to choose what desktop you want based on your *preference*?
In case you don't want to choose - fine, use whatever default desktop is chosen by your distribution. You don't have to choose if you really don't want to.
As for standardizes interfaces: even Windows doesn't have standardized interfaces. Installers all look a little different from each other - fullscreen blue InstallShield, MSI, Win2k-style InstallShield, fullscreen Inno Setup, Win2k-style Inno Setup, WinSFX, WISE Installer, etc. etc.
An installation system that handles dependancies with no user interfaction is being worked on - see my sig. We're close to 1.0.
Re:possibly not (Score:3, Insightful)
If there wasn't a PHB in charge but a rational manager who knows his shit, you won't need run hoops around him anyway.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, funny that you think this is a strength. This is IMO the main weakness of all Unix based systems. Too many options means you can be familiar 100% with your system, and yet you won't be able to operate (well) another Linux, because things are so different. Hence the difficulty to debug your mom's Linux on the phone because your freaking brother installed it and he's on vacation right now, so you have no clue how to drive your mom through the command line stuff. With Windows, if she has a Win98 and you too, you're on the same page. It basically boils down to:
If you want a huge userbase, and a lot of knowledge of your system spread around, present a homogen system. Heterogen system will look (from Joes SixPack's point of view) as different systems, and he will be - rightfully - scared. Joe Sixpack wants a system that works. Not a tetrazillion of options and choices. Joe is scared by choices by nature.
No, it won't change the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Which of these do you get if you run Linux over Windows?
None of the above, of course.
If one simply needs a Open Source Office, that's what OpenOffice.org is for and there is a Windows version.
If there were a killer app for the general population that only ran on Linux and can't be ported, this might make sense. Name one.
This may be touted as a technical miracle, and it might be. But change the world? Looks more to me like a solution in search of a problem.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Or more to the point a lot of computers are never used for playing video games in the first place. Given the level of "convergance" between movies and computer games it's quite possible that Linux was highly involved in the production of quite a few of these DirectX games
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you ever see people moaning about the fonts on an ATM? How about those on a cash register? Or those on a telephone... These kind of things are used by far more people than PCs.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, compare that with Linux, where double clicking on the titlebar can do anything from shading/unshading a window to maximizing/restoring it. And where would you go to change this behavior? KDE and Gnome have totally different prefs panels. And if you're running some other WM, then -- well, it's time for lots of fun. And then there are the eternal cut-n-paste problems (which is a standardization problem IMO -- nobody implements it right). Virtual desktops (or the lack of them). And so on.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a reason why it sucks for such work?
Well, the OpenGL guys have long said that DirectX was only concerned with getting things to "look right," rather than having pure mathematical accuracy. In other words, some of the rendering calculations were done in such a fashion as to make them inappropriate for, say, physics modelling, but fine (and faster) for video games.
That said, I'm not sure that argument holds much water anymore with the later versions of DirectX. It's hard to say, since I don't use it. But anyway, from the games standpoint (which I'll agree is lots more important to Linux's mainstream success) it doesn't make hardly any difference now, which was your main point anyway. Both are plenty fast with modern hardware, and do all the stuff games need.
Which of course means that the point that started all this (that Linux needed DirectX compatibility to succeed) is totally bogus. But then, that's no surprise, so were his other two points.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux shouldn't cater to 'Joe sixpack,' this is your fundamental misunderstanding here. Can Linux be used to cater to this? Sure. Because there are options, because it's flexible. Any step that impairs its flexibility is a bad move in the longrun.
Distros are the ones that can and should cater to particular audiences. Distros can produce standardized 'desktops' and all the stuff you're talking about, and that's fine. Several are trying to cater to your 'Joe sixpack' and that's great. But they can only do this because Linux is so flexible.
Re:One word: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the answer to all problems with Linux are always with the user. So convenient.
Yeah, it is kind of convenient....when I have a problem with Linux, it's usually a problem with me...something I've done improperly, or something I haven't setup that I need to. In contrast, my Windows problems are much more frequently something that the system has wrong or broken.
Sure, the Windows problems are easier to deal with (since I can't deal with them, I just sit there without doing anything...quite easy). But the Linux problems get fixed.
Re:Conquering Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Integration of video drivers into the kernel. Yes this makes it unstable, but Linux currently is plagued by the problem that Windows NT 3.51 had using fastLPC and HAL to control the video cards. Integrating into the kernel will give the necessary speed.
Well, shit, here this whole time I thought nvidia.o was loaded into my running kernel each time I booted. (Oh, and before you start going on about the GLX module, it's in the right spot too...suggesting it should be a kernel module would be obtuse at best.
2. A thread model that allows thread ownership to be changed dynamically. Most important is the thread model. IPC is just too dammed slow compared to reading a common memory heap for a process. Without a thread model it is very difficult to make a responsive GUI application that does anything complex (unless of course you use IPC and spawn several processes).
Without a thread model? Pthreads? Oh, and about thread ownership changing dynamically, I'm too frightened by the security consequences of something like this to even think about it.
3. A GUI messaging system that makes much faster calls on the operating system. GUI applications will not be able to compete with the speed of windows apps unless something is done to integrate this GUI messaging system with the OS. While this sounds like it is forcing a default Window manager, this isn't so. It just requires a programming standard to the messaging system to be written.
You know, Linux could use that. Perhaps even through a scheduler that can dynamically reassign priority to a server process when a client is waiting on it....hmmm....Oh wow...that's funny...that's in the 2.6 kernel.
I'm not saying X is perfect...but it's pretty damn good, with speed in the same neighborhood as Windows. And looking at the change in performance over time of the two systems (Windows slowing down, X speeding up), it's not X that should be worried.
CoLinux to help windows migration (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a Windows user. Why? Because I love to play games, I use quite a bit of software for which there is no Linux clone, and I like the rapid response and eyecandy format that Windows provides.
Having said that, as an engineer, I've always wanted to get better at using Linux. Oh, sure, I can log on, cd, ls, updatedb, locate, man, and generally get my way around a linux system. But I don't know my way around a Linux box like I know my way around a Windows box. I spend all my time in Windows, so this is no surprise.
I don't want to run two boxes, and VMWare is dirt slow at running linux. I have a 2.4Ghz P4, and it's just frustrating to watch VMWare boot like it's running on a 250Mhz K6.
In comes CoLinux: In just a few short hours, I've installed the Debian distribution, installed KDE, and now have a full fledged KDE desktop running in Windows! Now I can use Windows AND Linux side by side, and finally have the oportunity to learn to use Linux the way I've always wanted to.
Now, I'm an engineer. Your average joe probably wouldn't get as far as I have gotten. So what needs to happen next?
If some bright programmer out there (I have no time, unfortunately) would write a server application for Linux and Windows that would connect to a client application in the other operating system and LAUNCH APPLICATIONS ON REQUEST FROM THAT CLIENT -- it would be the start of mass transition to Linux.
Imagine: You start Windows. In the background, the linux "box" starts up as a service. The Windows "box" is networked via Samba to the Linux drives. The Linux box is networked to the Windows drives. The Windows box starts an X-Server.
You click "START" in windows: Up pops all your favorite (hated?) Windows apps... ALONG SIDE YOUR LINUX APPS! You click a linux app. The shortcut causes the Windows Client to send a UDP message to the Linux Server to start that application. The Linux box starts the application, connects to the already running XServer on the Windows box, and up pops your Linux application!
Now imagine, your Windows user has come to love linux so much, he decides to switch to Linux. He's not ready to dump windows yet, but he wants to start using KDE instead of the Windows Explorer.
You set windows to connect to the Linux box at startup, and you have KDE running. Now you log into KDE, click the K-Start button, and up pops all your Linux apps -- with Windows apps right beside them! You click on a windows app, the same thing happens in reverse: Linux contacts Windows, Windows starts the app, up pops your windows app.
Even shortcuts to applications work in their respective OSes.
All data files are visible from either OS.
Finally, after months of learning to use Linux, our user finally reformats with Linux, goes fully secure (notice we're assuming this linux box is single user, and non-secure while being used from Windows to make life easier for our Windows user.) Now he runs Wine or VMWare to get access to the few remaining Windows applications he still has to have.
THIS is the key. THIS is what will let Windows users finally break into Linux. When my GRANDMOTHER can finally click START -> Programs -> Konquerer and be using Linux instead of Windows, THAT is what is going to change the world.
Oh, and of course, the Clipboards of the two OSes MUST interact. =)
It's a great day for Linux and Windows users alike.
-tENS0r