Windows Interoperability in A Linux Distro 355
Magenta writes "There is a review of the Desktop OS Version 3 Business Edition from Xandros. This operating system is meant to allow users to easily move from Windows XP to Linux without the problems that can arise. Xandros not only can use Window's file system but it is able to run a great number of Windows programs using its CrossOver Office tool from CodeWeavers. This is one of the most accessible distros to come along in awhile and it marks a big step forward in the progress on Linux on the desktop."
Windows compatibility (Score:4, Interesting)
The only question that comes to mind is:
When do these Windows compatibilites start to become security issues in Linux? I mean I am all for having some Windows apps run in Linux. The main reason I use Linux at home was because things like IE and other security ridden problems in Windows arent available in Linux.
Just my $.02
Re:/shrug (Score:1, Interesting)
This simple thing is lost on most everyone in Linux it seems some days.
Does Tux Racer alone not suggest good gaming is possible on Linux? Do increasingly better drivers for nVidia and ATI not sink in?
Oh, that's right. The problem is user-friendliness which is the antithesis of the leet geek brigades who search out things to do because they're hard and prove how smart they are.
I got tired of writing in hex in my head when I was a teen. I just want stuff to work. XP and FC3 for me for now while I wait for the Linux equivalent of XP to hit... And wait...
Cool (Score:2, Interesting)
The road for Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
This is a step in the wrong direction. How will the native software for Linux improve if the people who are migrating are still using Microsoft Office?
Windows software... (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem is hardware thats not compatable out the box, most people will give up. I've run Mandrake for 2 months no problems (However took a year to get hardware sorted) until a couple weeks back when the computer moved upstairs and I added a wifi card. Its either Windows with its problems (not saying Linux is perfect, merely Linux's short comings don't affect my use of the computer) and net access, or Linux and no internet.
Untill hardware is supportted (And by no means is the *nix developers fault), it'll fail to get a foot hold.
And no, I'm not Linux savvy, I just know UT2004 gets more frames per sec in mandrake (Mandriva, silly, silly name) than XP2 and looks just as good to me, and firefox seems a little more responsive, not to mention CGI scripts/php in apache worked better than apache in windows. And thats what matters to me.
Order in Chaos (Score:2, Interesting)
The majority of users have simple, finite needs. They want to be able to browse the net, check Email, chat with friends on IM networks, play music and view pictures, and write documents using Word. Occasionally, they want to play games.
Let's assume there is a Desktop Environment / Operation System that allows them to do all that:
o easily
o virus/trojan/spyware free
o through a gorgeous UI
o crash-free
We can easily exclude Windows from the list. Linux doesn't suffer from viruses / worms but does suffer from everything else. That leaves Mac OS-X. It may not be 100% crash-free but everything else is a given on this platform.
So, how does this Xandros edition make things better for those users? It simply introduces more windows problems to the already flawed Linux desktop experience.
Sure, it allows you to 'easily' run some windows applications directly. But is this really the way to go for making Linux more acceptable by the majority of users?
How about bridging the differences between the various DEs ( KDE, Gnome.. ) ? How about realizing all linux users are necessarily programming/systems gurus or wannabes ? Or even providing some nice, complete applications that don't require you to mess with
Hopefully, order will prevail the Linux 'anarchy' and something good will come out of all those fine efforts.
OUTRAGED!!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
The whole UI just looks like a rip off other other UIs and tiny tweaks and of course the blatant rip-off of NTFS from another OS! I know others must be sharing my dismay at how a product is so blatantly coping others!
...oh wait. Its Linux you say. Awsome! This is just what we need! ROCK ON!
Re:A must (Score:3, Interesting)
I installed wine and all the apps he was used to -- MS Office, Photoshop, IE (actually he dumped IE for Mozilla on Windows a couple of years ago.) -- but he didn't really use them. He found it easy to switch. In the case of K3B he said it was "much easier to use than that Roxy-whatever thing on Windows." His slide scanner worked perfectly without the installation of any extra software, and mult-vendor multimedia/DVD "just works" unlike in windows.
So I guess that having the Windows apps there provides comfort. But in this particular case study, they were placebos.
Fraction of the cost?!?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
At $129 dollars per license...that's one helluva fraction!!!
Save your money! Use your fav linux distro and buy Crossover Pro for $75 bucks [codeweavers.com] if you need that functionallity!
Re:Talk about advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
From a non-fanboy's POV... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm currently on Mandriva, and I must say, if my parents need an OS when their Windows machine craps out (again), that will be what I'm installing. Everything works out of the box, and my parents are good enough web searchers that they'll be able to find what they need help on in a google search and on forums.
Even though unrelated, they are warming up to FOSS ever since I installed firefox on their system, so Linux will be simplier "pill to swallow" for them.
Re:Distortions (Score:3, Interesting)
The lack of savvy Linux users out there to help people get set up and give them some minimal training is indeed an issue in furthering the spread of Linux and other open-source operating systems. Also, there is no proof, per se, that mimicking Windows is a mistake. You are also correct in saying that I would argue that is is, though.
My first set of experiences with Linux were with "user friendly" distributions. Mandrake 9.2 comes to mind. Not only did the (albeit minimal) Windows-mimicking not impress me, it turned me off. It turned me off because I wasn't looking for something that acted like Windows (poorly) and was just as full of bugs and flaky behaviour as Windows itself. If I wanted poor UI design and bugs, I could stay with Windows (without losing the software I was accustomed to).
Debian, however, impressed me a lot. It didn't try to be Windows (out of the box - I'm not trying to start a distro flame war, and I'm not ignorant, so please spare us all the trouble) and it had a reasonably simple installation. It took a bit of tweaking to get it right for my hardware, and that is an issue that (as mentioned) does need work. Debian was what ultimately convinced me to switch to Linux. I had a similar experience with FreeBSD, although I ultimately decided that I liked the feel of Debian a bit better.
My point is that a clean and clearly superior operating system speaks for itself. Several of my friends have now switched to Linux simply from my offhanded comments and observing me using it. They're not techno-geeks by any stretch either, but once they see that it isn't as scary as it sounds (FUD), they're willing to give it a good solid try.
I clearly don't have the solution to the "Linux isn't popular enough" problem. Ideally, we'd put a core of Linux geeks in the center of every village and let it spread by grassroots, but that isn't going to happen. Instead, I think the best solution we have at the moment is to get better "out of the box" support without trying to win over the "I want a poor Windows clone" crowd. Ubuntu, by all accounts, fares farely well out of the box. This, I think, will be more of a win for the Linux community than any amount of Windows envy.
Wasn't Linux imitative of . . . UNIX? (Score:3, Interesting)
The original idea behind GNU and then Linux was to imitate UNIX with a free version. UNIX was considered a powerful and useful operating system, but it was proprietary as all anything and required expensive software licenses.
So Windows is proprietary and bound up in licenses, and people think it is useful to have a free work-alike, and they just happen to layer that work-alike on top of Linux instead of writing their own kernel.
Having tried Windows apps under Xandros, my only gripe is that the screen paints are slow, ScrollWindowEx() has a slow implementation, and IDirectDraw.WaitForVerticalBlank() gives a return code saying that it works but it doesn't wait for the vertical retrace -- it is stubbed out. While the native Linux apps are peppier, screen speed is still not one of the standout qualities.
While we are on the subject, there are the purists who insist on talking about GNU/Linux because Linux is only the kernel and GNU is all of the tools. Well, then maybe we should talk about Gnome/GTK/Linux and KDE/Qt/Linux as these are the configurations to do GUI's and we can also say that OS-X is in reality Finder/Quartz/Darwin. And maybe there is a set of users (and developers) who want Win32 API/Linux (i.e. Wine/Linux).
So Linux is better than Windows. Is that true of the GUI layer? Is there anything about Gnome/GTK or KDE/Qt that is really that standout and advanced beyond Win32/GDI?
If I want to break loose from the Microsoft monopoly, Gnome/GTK or KDE/Qt don't really do anything for me. The don't seem to be any more advanced than Win32 API, they are missing some features that Win32 API has, and I would be breaking my backside writing for some small percentage of the desktop market that keeps promising to break out any year now. If I wanted to play around with a GUI tool set in a minority market because it has a cool factor, I would give Xcode/Cocoa a look.
The word-on-the-street I get from my CS department contacts is that if I want to develop for Linux to do it in Java (or Python/wxPython -- in my particular software niche where I am currently Windows bound, another developer has a product using a mix of TCL/TK and low-level C to not be OS bound). Not that the Java GUI API stands out, but at then I would (more or less) achieve OS independence. None of these guys are telling me that I should target Gnome or KDE.