What's up with Lindows? 342
A reader writes "In this editorial at DesktopLinux.com, commentator Malcolm Dean questions whether Lindows is any sort of linux at all, and suggests that the world might actually be better off without yet another proprietary/commercial Windows wannabe (that runs Windows apps, no less). Dean asks how it is possible that, as Lindows.com founder Michael Robertson manages to claims in his latest newsletter, Lindows' ten million lines of code include a Windows Compatibility Module that somehow works better than anything else available today. "Has Mr. Robertson's team accomplished in a few months what took WINE years?" Where is the substance to back the hype? Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?"
Wine? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wine? (Score:3, Informative)
No idea if this is - or not - WINE-related.
Namesake (Score:1)
Ahhhh....
What "Lindows" has achieved and WINE has failed is in the game of namesake.
If WINE was named "Winux", it may have a better chance for success.
What's wrong with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I see nothing wrong with being able to run windows software on linux. There is a lot of good software available on windows and in some respect it is a waste to just reprogram what is already available. Instead it is better to concentrate on things that are not already there. I really see nothing wrong with the ability to use both linux and windows software together. If there is an existing windows package to do something then that's nice.
Just my opinion.
Greetings,
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
I'm not even a big conceptual fan of WINE - I think it's a clever idea, I'm sure the programmers have good intentions - but with WINE, we've got real talent chasing the MS API moving target - which they'll never catch because MS will conceal or lie about it - when they could be working on native apps. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe this is a good strategy, because with one fell swoop you open up a new world of apps for Opensource/Free software - but I just don't see it that way.
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Bingo! Congratulations! Give that man/woman a cigar!
This is the exact issue I have. Right now I'm 80% of the way to using only Linux at work. What's stopping me?
1. MS Exchange - we use Outlook 2000 for email/calendaring etc. This will be solved when I purchase [yes I will pay] the plugin for Evolution
2. MS Office - we use Word and Excel and Access for various things. The open source Office clones are getting better, but they are still not quite good enough for what I need.
3. Remedy - There is no remedy client for linux. Sorry, gotta have it to do trouble tickets.
So I run everything else from Linux on my laptop. DVD, cdburning, personal email etc. But until I have those things, I either have to keep a separate Windows box going, or run something like Lindows.
I'd rather run Lindows for a couple apps than Windows for a couple apps.
Of course, there is one other thing I run Windows for. Diablo II. [sigh]
Ender
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally think that we should try to follow the ideals of free software as much as possible when creating our own software packages. But there is still the fact that there is already a lot of good software available on Windows. It doesn't make sense not to use the software that you need to use (if there is no alternative on linux) just because they violate some ideals.
Just my opinion
Greetings,
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Look, that voice of optimism and enthusiasm, as far as I know, has never had to live or work very far from the world of academia (again, I could be wrong, in which case I apologize.) One thing that's both wonderful and grating about academic-types is that many will put an idealistic crusade above all, rather than stepping back and looking at the practicality of a situation.
Or, to put it more succinctly, those otherwise highly intelligent people have never had to grow up.
The real truth to the situation: if Lindows is more than smoke-and-mirrors, and their CEO can get beyond his annoying habit of trampling on others' intellectual property rights, you'll have a choice that, if it works, allows one to use both free software and software that's written for a platform that's on more than 90% of desktop machines.
I, for one, am interested merely because I'm tired of dual-booting, and have no intentions of buying XP unless I have an opportunity to buy the Corporate Edition. I live in a country where the judicial system treats me as an innocent until proven guilty; I want software that does the same.
Idealism is one thing; putting food on the table is quite another. If anyone wants to help instruct me on hacking Pantone support into Sketch, and then help keep Pantone's lawyers off my back, I'd be more than happy to; until then, if this platform would help make running those W32 apps such as Illustrator as painless on the Linux platform as it is on the Windows platform (or, even better, less painful), I'm all ears.
Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
The Windows Monopoly is because, YOU DONT GET TO CHOOSE.
No one and I mean absolutely no one had the chance to choose Windows, it simply came with every computer.
You didnt have the CHANCE to choose OS2 because it wasnt an Option.
The same reason everyone uses Internet Explorer is why people use Windows. Because its already there, and it works.
If Lindows can manage to get OEMs to pack it into their computers, This will be the beginning of the end of the Microsoft Monopoly.
At this point people will be able to say, "Hey Lindows runs Windows software and Linux software, I dont use Linux but my friend whos a technician seems to keep telling me about it. hmmm"
This is the reaction Lindows will make, and from here its up to the open source community, and Lindows to get people to switch over.
IF Lindows has a nice OSX style GUI (I doubt it but its a nice wish)
And if Lindows can use most Windows software, Lindows will be a hit.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
How hard do you think it is for me to go download winamp to play mp3s instead of wmp, or to download mozilla [which overrides all of IE's settings about handling html,ftp,http, etc...] or to download yahoo messenger instead of MSN messenger or to download staroffice instead of MS Office.
The problem is "most people don't care". For an average joe-blow with zero computer knowledge he just wants to type up a book report. He doesn't care if the word processor was FSF approved or came from a third party.
However, the choice *does* exist if the user chooses to pursue it.
Now get off your high horse!
Most people use what is already there because (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not that people dont care, they dont know any better.They arent knowledgeable enough to know theres something better than windows better than IE, and so on and so forth.
They use AOL because they believe AOL IS the internet, not a client to access it.
They use Microsoft Windows because they believe Windows IS the computer, and that theres nothing else to use.
You see, if people arent given a chance to choose in a store when they go to buy their computer, they automatically assume that because Windows is all thats being sold, that Windows is all there is.
Proof- Not so long ago, people believe that in order to buy a PC, you had to buy an Intel Pentium, people even called PCs Intel Boxes, or Pentiums. When a person wanted to buy a Video Card before Nvidia arrived, People went for a Voodoo, not because Voodoo was the only card but because thats all that people saw in the stores, sure there were other cards but what card did all games seem to support? The Voodoo cards.
Sure theres always been choice, but if every corperation, every store, everywhere you go, you dont see any choice, you just see one product, eventually in your mind thats it, theres nothing else to choose from. After years of only computers packed with Windows, it will be quite a shock to see a computer packed with Lindows, but if Lindows can prove to the user that its better than Windows,
Like Nvidia beat Vodooo, and AMD beat Intel, Lindows may beat Windows.
However, IF Microsoft forces OEMs to only use Windows from Microsoft, and people like Dell dont even sell you a computer with anything else, well, what do you expect to happen here?
I'm happy to see Lindows stand up to Microsoft and give them serious competition, the problem with OS2 is, it wasnt competition at all, it actually helped sell Microsoft Windows because OS2 sat in the backround, no OEM sold OS2 computers, not even IBM the makers of OS2 sold OS2 on their own Machines.
Just like Mozilla and Netscape cant catch up to IE because AOL wont use Netscapes browser on their own software.
So what do you expect to happen when Linux users dont support Lindows?
You're right (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure why your posting was rated as "funny," because it's right on the money.
Take my mother. (Please! No, not really, but I couldn't resist.) A few years back, she wanted a computer. I, being the evil scum that I am, concluded that she would do better on the Mac than on Windows 95. I was right. She's had a couple of PowerBooks. She does a lot. She uses email (not through AOL), can get to the web, does finances on Quicken, writes up test papers and letters, manages addresses, and uses the spreadsheet. She is, if anything, above average as a home user. Every time I visit her, she has questions for me, usually trivial matters, and she's very afraid of making changes. (I bought her a Palm, and she was afraid to synchronize it, because she didn't want to "break anything.")
So, a few months ago she calls to say that some of her games aren't working. A conversation like the following ensues:
I: What changed?
She: I had to upgrade Quicken.
I: Just Quicken? Was there anything else?
She: Yeah, I had to get another number.
I: Another number?
She: Yeah, wait a minute. Here it is. 9.1.
I: You installed a major operating system upgrade without calling me first? That can cause a lot of stuff to break!
She: That's what I'm finding out.
People who are not geeks or computer scientists simply do not know what an operating system is. A minority of them know the phrase "operating system," but it has no more intrinsic meaning to them than "geegaw" or "rang deedio." If they know at all about it, they just know that it has to be there and has to work.
Nor should they, in an ideal world. The whole role of an operating system is to facilitate use of the computer and not get in the way. In the user model the operating system is the computer is the genie behind the screen. When they buy a computer, they buy a computer, and everything they get in the box that says "computer" is the computer. They may understand keyboard, monitor, and mouse as parts, but they don't understand, at all, that the OS is a fungible part of the system. There may be a disc, but they ignore it until something breaks.
The same thing is true of user interfaces. Well-meaning people like Jef Raskin and Donald Norman, as well as not-so-well-meaning people like Alan Cooper have been advocating for clean user interfaces that are invisible to the user for years. They're right, from a technical standpoint. They're all of them totally wrong when they try to explain why user interfaces are bad or how to make them better. The reason that user interfaces are not as good as they are is that the more invisible a component is, the less people are even aware of it when making purchase decisions. As a result, while really terrible user interfaces may result in some bad word-of-mouth, really good interfaces also suffer, because by definition, most people don't perceive them as elements. Beyond a certain level of frustration, market forces don't work on user interfaces and may even work against good ones, because mediocre interfaces have more visible features.
Re:Did you listen to a word that I said? (Score:2)
He didn't say "forced" from what I read. Your either intentionaly twisting his argument into what you wish he was saying or do entrenched in your own opinion to notice the subtleties.
And if you want to rehash the debate if a default installation illicitely breads monopolies I invite you to take it up with the current Judge overseeing the Microsoft case where they were ruled as using one monopoly to gain another *by* enforcing onto OEMs the choice of user installation.
Re:Did you listen to a word that I said? (Score:2)
I fail to see relavance. Sorry.
Get facts, get them straight, then please come again.
Re:Did you listen to a word that I said? (Score:2)
I'm not interested in word games either. Make it into a crossword puzzle and maybe I'll do it on my next plane trip.
I've already my opinion on the matter, if you have disagreement say so. If you need clarification ask.
Re:Did you listen to a word that I said? (Score:2)
Exactly WRONG. If MS is a monopoly, then by strict definition it doesn't have competitors. That's what "monopoly" means.
Now, having a monopoly, per se, is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly in one market to seize control of another market is. At which point I simply say "Stacker", and the case is made; Microsoft used a monopoly on DOS (a monopoly so complete that MS was at the time paid by most computer manufacturers for every PC shipped, not every PC shipped with DOS) to drive Stac (now Previo) out of the PC disk compression buisness and gain a monopoly on PC disk compression.
Re:Did you listen to a word that I said? (Score:2)
Mozilla is a fully functional legitimate program that MS has not suppressed in any way shape or form. Any windows user can download Mozilla and make the switch.
And won't they be surprised when they go to look for the latest "l337" animation, only to find that the thing they need to view it is only available as an ActiveX extension, since IE no longer supporte NS plugins.
No, no suppression of competition at all.
For DJGPP, use RHIDE (Score:2)
Try to explain how to install and use DJGPP to a teen.
I have. Twice. Once to my friend Josh Kearney [evilpigeon.net] (who was 16 at the time) and once to somebody else on AIM (who was 19 at the time). It's easy: unzip all zipfiles, set up the environment variables in autoexec.bat or msconfig (depending on Windows version), restart the computer, and then from any command prompt type rhide to enter the IDE. RHIDE can manage project files (.gpr), has a text editor with overlapping windows, and can trace your code with the GDB engine.
It took me [when I was 15] about a week or two of work to figure out how GCC works.
I told them gcc -Wall foo.c bar.c baz.c -o foo.exe and that was it.
Now, yes, I know GCC is not a complete suite of tools. I'm saying the tools bundled with GCC [like the cygwin or mingw packages] don't include useful guis or anything.
RHIDE is an IDE for GCC, and it looks like the GUI of the old text-mode Borland IDE. So what if it runs in text mode rather than pixel mode? Or are you talking integrated resource editors?
Personally I am a fan of simple edit boxes. I like the color highlighting and the API popups. Anything else [macros for example] are just not features I would use to enter text into a box
RHIDE has relatively simple, relatively Windows-like edit boxes with syntax keyword highlighting. To get help on a function of a library whose Info docs are installed, place the cursor on the function and press Ctrl+F1.
Both [MSVC and free(beer) lcc-win32] include clean and simple gui editors that make project management simple.
So does RHIDE.
Packages like mingw or cygwin [which are the types of OSS packages most zealots here support] are complete from a compiler point of view but they lack editors and other useful integrated tools [resource editors for example].
RHIDE doesn't include a Win32 resource editor, but it doesn't include ResEdit (Mac OS Classic resource editor), whatever Mac OS X uses, or Glade (GTK+ resource editor) either. You can get resource editors separately. Both MinGW and Cygwin include windres, a Windows resource compiler.
If you object primarily to the separate download locations of the various components (compiler, ide, and resource editor), feel free to package your own distro of Cygwin software and recommend it to other developers.
Re:Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words, "Office isn't done until Lindows and Wine won't run it."
There are several sides to this. On the one hand, Wine translates Windows applications to run under other OSs, while Lindows provides services for native Windows APIs, so Microsoft will have to continually "innovate"... er, obfuscate these to prevent compatibility. Who is placed on the "treadmill" of forced code extension then, Microsoft?
That strikes me as a Good Thing because in doing so Microsoft will have to break the ability of Windows XP+1 to run Office XP (and Office 2000, etc), thus alienating a lot of customers who won't choose to upgrade MS Office. Mike Magee at The Inquirer still runs an early release of WinWord because the next release broke the glossary. And I still use WinWord95 because it works under OS/2 and later versions can still read the files it produces. Microsoft better not break backwards compatibility for its Office applications, or it will see a major customer backlash involving wholesale defection to other applications (like StarOffice) that can handle all the older MS Office formats.
On another hand, a large part of Microsoft's revenues proceed from its hammerlock on the OEMs (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM, etc.) to preload Windows (and only Windows) on consumer and business PCs. If that monopoly is broken, a big chunk of Microsoft's revenues are suddenly at risk. If more reliable and secure OSs are found capable of running MS Office applications, this risk to MS increases. This will also be a Good Thing, IMHO. So Lindows and Wine are backing Microsoft into a corner - I applaud it.
By the way, if you have any comments about the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case, you can send them to:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You have 60 days from Nov 28. By law, all public comments received must be published in the Federal Register. One hopes public comments will be reviewed by the Court.
you just spammed department of justice (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Offtopic)
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
-Ralph Wiggum
Windows apps == good, no Linux apps == bad (Score:2)
If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
Ten million lines of code ? Holly molly... instead of wasting your time on making linux run windows apps, why dont you make better *LINUX* apps for LINUX ?
Re:If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2)
Actually it's quite possible for a Windows app to run better in some kind of virtual machine environment. Because the virtual machine only needs to be looking after that app, it dosn't need to be also looking after the hardware and other apps.
Re:If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why isn't it Open Source?
Why don't you give something back to the community, which offered you linux?
Without linux you could not have done the app!
Suddenly you find the app, regardless of its price (I mean even if its $49,00 app) on download(crack) sides.
They continue to cheere: why isn't it Free Software?
The point is very easy: for applications there is only one known business model which is known to work:
a) Sell the app.
b) Try to claim you are not selling it and rent it.
As open source is not sellable (no one succeeded in service business for applications, except he uses dual licensing and then he IS SELLING it), the company soon vanishes.
If you are succeeding for a while the OS community will make pressure and increase pressure over time untill the app is free/open on linux and the vendor only has the chance left to sell it on Windows.
LOL, you see the irony? Troll Tech is in a VERY good position meanwhile because they survived the phases I described above, it was EASY for tehm to vanish like many others did.
Now their only revenue come from selling Qt to Windows developers.
Good apps on UNIX/LINUX are migrating towards Windows, errmmm... I ment: they are migrating away from LINUX/UNIX.
Please don't point me to JBOSS or Apache
Also don't point me to Cygwin, they also run a totaly different business model(porting linux and linux apps to embedded environments).
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Re:If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2)
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
Many reviewers claimed that OS/2 ran Win16 apps better than Windows 3.x. Windows NT did a fantastic job with many Win16 apps. (They ran in sort of a VM so that NT was protected from their crap.) Windows NT/2000/XP run many Win32 apps better than Windows 95/98/ME.
There's always room for improvement, especially over the DOS-based kludge that is Win 95/98/ME. Improving performance and stability over the WinNT code base isn't easy. Most of the instability I see is related to either bad configuration (usually a user screwup, but not always) or crappy drivers. To me it seems a lot harder to f-up a Linux box (short of the popular rm -rf /) and the drivers are more stable.
Re:If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2)
Before windoze95, OS/2 did, in fact, run windows applications much better than windows itself did.
If one day somebody were to write a good windows workalike, I have no doubt that windows software would run better on it too. The problem is the architecture itself probably doesn't lend itself well to this.
Re:If you wanna run windows apps.... (Score:2)
When an app crashes in Windows it takes out the OS.
When a Windows App crashes in Linux only that App dies. Clearly the app dying instead of the OS dying is IMHO, "better".
Re:Thats dumb. (Score:2, Funny)
Product Lifespan ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah right! (Score:3, Funny)
Is the development team God-like? (Score:2, Funny)
Or has he already made Lindows so "Windows Compatiable" that even the whole team/company emulates Microsoft [microsoft.com] in all aspects? Maybe he's just a clone of Bill.
Re:Is the development team God-like? (Score:2)
Ah, Bill Gates. They guy where an "Evil clone" would be the expected outcome if everything goes *right* with the procedure.
Rich
A spawn of an unholy marriage. (Score:3, Troll)
In fantasy terms:
No, Mr. Robertson. If you breed an angel with a demon, you don't get an angel able to cast death magick.
In my book, Lindows is not any sort of Linux at all. If it is commercial, then even if it runs Linux software, has a Linux look or even if it is somehow related to a true Linux, it ain't Linux.
Linux is not the penguin. Linux is the smile on the penguin's face.
// Ego sum Nucivorax, me clamare audi.
Re:A spawn of an unholy marriage. (Score:2)
First things first: for someone who cares so deeply about software freedom, perhaps you should read the FSFs (or the OSIs, or the dictioanrys) opinion on the world commercial sometime. The opposite of free / open source is non free, closed source, or proprietary. There's a great deal of commercial Open Source software and a great deal of noncommercial proprietary software. So many people and so many rants, and so many not bothering to learn their organization thy supposedly represent's definition of commercial, or better yet use logic to determine the lack of relationship between commerce and the liberty of code.
Secondly, assuming you meant `proprietary' when you said commercial, most installed Linux systems by your definition are proprietary (because you seem to think that one single proprietary piece of software magically `taints' every other free / open source part. Used Netscape 4, Pine, or Qmail? Read documentation under the Debian approved but hypocritically proprietary Free Documentation License? Used WineX? or Ghostscript? Or Staroffice?
Linux is an OS, comprising of a Linux kernel, sone initscripts and libraris as definied by the FHS and whatever else you think is part of an OS. Lots of us use it because its the best tool for the job.
Re:A spawn of an unholy marriage. (Score:2)
Yes, being able to run more programs is worthwhile (Score:5, Interesting)
Programs are tools. Why would anybody choose to limit the amount of tools in their toolkit, when some of the forsaken tools could help them get their job finished much earlier?
Good luck to those who would add to the functionality of Linux!
dont hold your breath... (Score:2, Funny)
this will no nothing but encourage M$ to do more harm.
now.. do we want any more buggy M$ type software running loose? I think not.
bet: this ever gets released, and works..
microsoft will:
A. sue.
B. make all their applications break on lindows.
if its more stable they will:
A. install lindows on all their machines.
B. use it to make more borg software
oh well, looks like we will lose anyhow.
Argument for Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really think the average consumer will see the advantage of running windows apps in a restricted environment. Even so, if you run, let's say, an unpatched outlook, with your real address book - when SirCam/whatever eventually hits you there's little difference from running pure Windows: it will send itself to everybody and will infect/delete the "sandbox" itself. For most of the people this will mean "everything".
To sum it up, apart from giving M$ something to mention (or not) in court and to give someone the opportunity to run a hybrid os, I don't see any real uses for Lindows. Nor do I see a market segment or even a niche for it.
What's this about again?
Re:Argument for Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you suggesting hindering competition to make sure that MS gets their pants sued off? What kind of backwards thinking is that?
If it's possible to have decent competition with MS out there, let it be.
So do we finally have LinuxTwo? (Score:2)
Pick your battles (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of years back Gatway baught the rights to all of the Amiga patents. They promised a new Amiga computer. They put up a website with designs, talked about how it would work, how it would change the world. The website said Amiga was comming back in a big way and promised to release a new computer within a year.
As a member of the Amiga communitiy I participated in fierce debates about things like: Should the new amiga use USB or Firewire? What should the main processor be? If it doesn't run the same Amiga OS is it still an Amiga? And more importantly how will the new Amiga affect current software venders? How difficult will it be to port programs? etc. etc.
In the end, Gateway sold off its patents, never released anything, and I wasted a bunch of time.
People are forgetting.. Lindows = WINE (Score:3, Troll)
Here's the quote, from a Wired article. It's a doosy. Apparantly Lindows has taken Wine, under the ever-so-exploitable modified BSD licence (there has been talked of changing to the LGPL soon, to ensure people like this DO feed changes back into the main tree...) and (rumor) stuck some chinese developers behind it to hack on the functionality Wine has been missing.. DCOM (supported somewhat by Transgamings WineX) and some extended Shlwapi functions. Woop.
Lindows achieves Windows compatibility by using pieces of Wine, which is software that allows Windows applications to run in Unix that has been in development since 1993.
Wine is only a part of the overall Lindows compatibility layer, Robertson said. The rest will come from software developed in-house. .
Re:People are forgetting.. Lindows = WINE (Score:2)
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Transgaming or Lindows wouldn't exist if Wine used an LGPL license? I know the president of Transgaming has said as much.
Oh yeah... and how much of your personal code has been "exploited" by Lindows?
Re:People are forgetting.. Lindows = WINE (Score:2)
Compare it to the space race of the 1950s and 1960s. Despite that the Russians were the first ones up, America beat them to the moon.
It's an endless cycle, I think. Someone introduces something, someone betters it, someone introduces the next thing based on the first thing... ad infinitum.
Re:Robertson didnt say Lindows=Wine (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like you're implying that we have no right to criticize anyone who doesn't break the law. You know some of believe that we should act at a higher standard then just what we are able to get away with.
Furthermore who are you to tell people what they can and can't criticize?
docs not apps (Score:2, Insightful)
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The only real desktop market at this time is for Windows desktops. So how to you compete in that market? The most obvious answer is: Run Windows apps as well as Windows, and do something that Windows doesn't do. In this case, they're trying to achieve that by taking Wine on Linux, extend it and package it as a Windows clone.
They get to benefit from all driver work and performance enhancements done by the open source community for Linux and Wine, and add to that to be able to put out a Windows environment at far lower development cost than Microsoft. Leveraging open source is quite possibly the ONLY way to compete in the Windows market, considering the immense sales revenues Microsoft has to fund their development.
This is a good thing, regardless of whether you like Windows or not: If Lindows succeeds, Microsoft will be forced to cut prices to compete. If you like Windows you will benefit from lower prices, if you hate Windows you will benefit from having Microsoft busy spending their resources on a more direct competitor as well as with less money to spend on squashing competitors, as being forced to cut prices will have a very real effect on their earnings.
The use of windows software.. heh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it. There is no way in hell all software will be available for Linux, and if a company cannot run that mission critical app, then they won't switch to Linux.
Let me give you an example. I'm from Norway. Companies tend to want programs where they can do their accounting - which has all norwegian tax-rules, and so forth ad nauseum programmed into them.
In norway we have some software called 'Guru Software' or something like that, and surely others too. Its windows applications.
Now, a company which has done its accounting in that software for a couple of years is quite locked down. Its not an easy task to just switch to Linux. The windows-software _needs_ to run on linux, so that previous years accounting information is easily accessible. Of course, one could always hope that the company would make a linuxversion of the software, but that isn't always easy.
Now, microsoft 'owns' such companies as long until Linux can run this kind of windows software perfectly. And the answer is 'yes' -- we want the ability to run such software under Linux. If not, well then we're not gonna get such companies as users.
Take another example. I'm currently doing civil service in Norway, in part of a city adminstration. We're 'locked in' on using Windows, as a lot of proprietary solutions we are using is windows-only applications. They run on windows servers, and the clients only exist for windows.
These are products in the health and social sectors, with highly specialized use. Its not very likely that the free software movement will produce software that less than 20 relatively small institutions worldwide will use, which is of this enourmous complexity.
The answer is that we _need_ the ability to run windows apps, and yes, it is something we _want_. IF not, we've lost a _LOT_ of potential users, which are 'locked in'.
Re:The use of windows software.. heh.. (Score:2)
Firstly, I have dealt with more than my share of crappy accounting packages, and I would be VERY surprised if they didn't run under Wine. They are mostly DOS-based apps with a Win3.1 GUI slapped on them. Some are even upgraded to be 'compatible with Windows95'.
Second, who cares about accounting software, or Joe's ever-so-important flowcharting app, or Trish's Win200-based email address harvester? I think we are taking the wrong approach if we are attempting to install Linux on EVERY box RIGHT NOW. It sounds like a company I despise. Some people will have to use Windows for at least the next 5 years, and we should just deal with it and put our efforts into something useful - like pulling in users through easier channels than Win32 emulation, and watch the apps get re-written.
Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
The community's way of dealing with that should be to create a way to run all of this software on the Linux OS. It is doing this well, IMO.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop. Well, I'm sorry it's just not going to happen that way
Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting, or failing to mention, that people advocate GNU/Linux for other reasons than toppling Microsoft. If software freedom is your goal, then migrating proprietary software from one OS to another doesn't really accomplish a thing.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
.... except bring a larger market share to a free OS. I think it's obviously naive to think that the software industry as a whole will just keel over and start giving its software away.
Maybe in the future there will be no 'software industry', but I think exactly the opposite will happen: the software industry will only get larger. Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
If the Linux community at least supports a way for it to exist in the OS (which is does, but it often frowns upon non-free software), maybe proprietary software and open source software will compete in an equal market (for once) and Linux will be brought to the masses because of the availability of more software. Wouldn't that be interesting
But the whole thing about software freedom is interesting as well. Should a free OS run non-free software? Sure, why not? The OS is still free. Let's let the market dictate success or failure of a piece of software instead of having this endless debate on freedom. If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:5, Insightful)
Fiat doesn't make it so. Sorry, but pick any economic theory you like; none of them say you "deserve" to get paid for your work. If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it? Of course that's nonsense.
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Not necessarily, given the current anti-competitive market in which it has to compete. Moreover, if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit", your statement evaporates in a tautology.
I would love to see the "market dictate succcess or failure of a piece of software". Not the US patent office. Not the monopoly owners of copyrighted proprietary de-facto standards.
Given the sordid state of the software industry, it's about time we do away with notion that proprietary software deserves a seat at the table. The only reason it has a seat at all is because we, as a society, invited it. It's time for the boot.
And let's never stop having this "endless debate on freedom".
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a very big if. Most people want software to work. It can be 100% free but if it doesn't do what you want it to then it is worthless - software is a tool, not a religion.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
Fiat doesn't make it so. Sorry, but pick any economic theory you like; none of them say you "deserve" to get paid for your work. If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it? Of course that's nonsense.
This isn't what the previous poster meant. What he meant is this: If I work 12 hours a day making god's eyes out of sticks and yarn, I have the right to sell them for $50/each. You have the right to either buy them or ignore them. In no way are your rights threatened by my activity.
At this point, you are going to counter me with the "software is different" argument, but we both know it doesn't wash. In both cases the physical material involved (sticks and yarn or CD's and cardboard) is minimal. The labor and time is the primary component of the product.
When you give proprietary software the "boot", you are essentially barging into my house and saying what I can do with my sticks and yarn, and dictating how I relate to my neighbors.
That is why proprietary software has, and must continue to maintain its right to exist. It is also why the Free Software movement is possibly the greatest threat to liberty in the new century.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
No. Unlike RMS, I have no desire to make publishing software under a particular license illegal just because I don't like the license. Let me clarify myself. Joe Blow kernel hacker doesn't threaten me, not at all. What threatens me is RMS's statement to the effect that he can't support the "right to release under any license" espoused by O'Reilly et. al.
When I speak of the Free Software movement, I am speaking of the radical element that has an agenda to make it illegal to write proprietary software, to wrest source code from Microsoft by government force, etc. OTOH, if the market determines that software should be free, I am just fine with that. The carriage analogy is a good one.
As for the PP not wanting to take away my rights, I doubt that he wouuld hesitate to vote for a representative who might sponsor a bill to regulate the software industry, with a long term view towards socializing it. This is what has me afraid, because the Republicans are way behind the curve on this one. Most of them don't even know what the FSF is. They need to be mobilized.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
I quote: "Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned."
That is a quote from the GNU Manifesto, it goes on further to rail against people who ask money for their work and how these people shall be outlawed as well.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
Well you've certainly confused the issue by taking a very anal approach to reading comprehension.
The point was obviously that you DON'T have the right to use the other guys work without asking permission. It is quite possible the granting of permission may be commiserate with a payment of sorts, in fact in a capitalist society it usually is.
Yes, let the market decide. But the market is not supposed to involve coercion.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I am against software patents and copyrights.
Are going to tell me that those institutions don't constitute coercion? Do you must believe that you have a natural right of ownership to the output of your brain's machinations? I.E. - that these laws simply institutionalize what we all know is good and holy?
BTW, don't quote me. These words belong to me.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
Yes, they don't involve coercion.
You have a choice, you can buy the product or not buy the product.
Copyrights and patents protect the creator from you stealing their hard efforts without just compensation.
"BTW, don't quote me. These words belong to me."
Isn't that hypocritical? Besides under fair use doctrine, I'm allowed to quote you.
It appears the one trying to coerce, is yourself.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2)
What I think you're saying is that Linux shouldn't allow proprietary software because the existence of which would use patents and be a detriment to free software.
I like the idea of sharing software ideas and not allowing ridiculous patents, but creating software is a lot of work, and people have to get paid somehow in order to survive (not forgetting that programmers/software designers are very educated people with student loans). If they are going to get paid, they have to be able to depend on the fact that their original (new) idea is protected, so some other company (or even free software) can come along and steal the idea.
I'm not saying that the current patent process is in any way fair, but there has to be some way of protecting business interests once a large sum of money is put down on someone's new bright idea to ensure someone else won't steal it and use it.
I know this is against free software ideals, but the idea that free software will dominate the world is almost ludicrous, only because I can't picture millions of current and future programmers and software designers working for absolutely nothing. I think it's fair to say that most free software writers (besides those hired by the likes of Red Hat et. al) have day jobs in the proprietary software industry. If it goes, how do these free software guys make a buck? As far as I'm concerned, it's Utopian and it will never happen in the near future.
What we need is something on an Internet time scale. A software 'patent' that lasts 3-5 years and after that the idea can be used by anyone. That amount of time is enough to get a good head start to profit on the idea, but still releases the idea to the public in a timely mannor.
I don't see any way around this copyright issue: - programmers need money to survive --> programmers need to get paid --> software needs to be bought by someone --> software contains orignal idea --> original idea can be protected.
In the end, proprietary software should (and will) exist on the Linux OS. Mixing this issue with the flawed software copyrighting system only confuses people. One endless argument at a time, please.
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a software developer and I strongly disagree at this point, if you're pointing at MS visual C++. The win32 API is one of the dirtiest and most unhandy API's I've worked with so far. For what I touched in the past only MSDOS beated it with it's terminate-stay-resitent-crap.
Personally I find QT/KDE a far more intuative and an easier API.
Well I asumeed here you refered to lowlevel and middle software. If you're doing with VB you're fine of with development time. But having (commercially) programmed VB applications in the past I tell you it's a horror to get them run across different windows systems. When I developed it it ran fine under win95. THen win98, did it run? No the printer API suddendly behaves differntly. Then they moved to Win2000, did it run? No again the API changed somewhat in behaviour.
You're right if programming targeted toward the market. If I today have to programm an end user application I want to sell, windows would still be my selection. Why? Since most users use it. 2nd reson? Because linux users (like me
(However if I want to build today a server, Linux is my selection, it's cheaper and I personally find it far more reliable (you need only the knowhow you've to aquire only once) If I want to build a high end embedded system Linux is my selection. I don't have to pay royality licenses, I have all the source, I can freely modify it, it has less overhead (kernel can be smaller than 500K). writing hardware drivers for it is tousend times more easier than win95/NT/2000/XP. If I would sell a complete "solution" I would also sell my application together with linux software. But still my Apps would proparly be closed source.
Remember OS/2 (Score:2, Interesting)
There were other reasons for OS/2's decline, but a lack of a native app code base was one major one. The efforts spent developing a Windows compatible layer on top of Linux would be better spent porting important apps (Photoshop, Games, Dreamweaver, etc.) to Linux as native apps. Of course before that happens, Linux GUIs need to be fine-tuned and driver support made less buggy.
Building tools to allow software developers to port their apps into Linux-native code would be best in the long run.
Virtual Windows on top of Linux and dual-booting (especially since LILO and GRUB are so persnicketty) are not long-term recipes for success.
Linux developers should either cede the desktop to Microsoft or develop native tools and apps and port Windows products to native code.
Just like OS/2, Linux had a technical advantage (in some ways) over Windows up until now, but with the introduction of Win XP, that advantage is lessening.
Time is of the essence. Lindows is a counterproductive retreat.
eh? (Score:2)
That's all I really care about.
Remember, Linux's main strength is that it is a solid, free framework. People who want that will use it, both on the developer and user side.
Those who wish to rule the world with it can sit in their bunkers with their Mr. Bigglesworths and scheme. I wish them all the best- I love distributed world conquest. They might even win.
I'll just do what I do.
Re:Remember OS/2 (Score:2)
On your last note: Someone must have written a book on OS/2 from such a perspective... but I can't find anything. The only accounts I have reasd are tangential ones in a Bill Gates biography.
Typical response (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness, I think it's been painfully clear for a long time that there's an enormous double standard in play in the OSS field. Everyone claims to want to improve Linux and make it more useful, but as soon as someone claims they have a way to remove the biggest single barrier preventing the 95% of desktop users currently running Windows convert to Linux, then everyone gets pissy about it.
My suggestion: Quit your damn whining and wait and see what Lindows delivers. If it works, it will end MS's monopoly faster than you can say "Ralph Nader". If it doesn't, then we can make fun of it and move on.
Re:Typical response (Score:2)
That's the #2 barrier. #1 is the usability of Linux itself - despite bold claims of converting one's own grandmum and kinder's PC over to Linux, what non-computer expert can realistically expect to wrestle with Linux when it fails to boot, or they add new hardware, install a new application, or, heaven forbid, they want to upgrade to the latest kernel? It's not for mere mortals.
There will always be a market for the easy-to-use O/S like MacOS and Windoze. Talk of "taking over" the Windows marketplace with Linux is just that, talk, with no inducements for the user themself. Bill knows this, it's why M$oft is on the offensive only in the server realm, not the desktop.
Until the typical end-users' desktop usability needs are taken seriously, there will be no mass migration to Linux.
Re:Typical response (Score:3, Informative)
what non-computer expert can realistically be expected to wrestle with Linux when they install a new application by clicking on the package they want in the GUI and clicking on the install icon? Err, wait a minute, that would be easy... don't some distributions already have this? I would be easy to add at any rate.
What non-computer expert can realistically expect to wrestle with Windows when it fails to boot?
Guess what happens when a Windows machine fails to boot. Some combination of: 1) reinstall the OS, 2) take it to a computer store and have them fix it, 3) beg whatever geek you can find to fix it for you. I don't see how these options fail to apply to Linux.
What non-computer expert can realistically expect to wrestle with Windows when, heaven forbid, they want to upgrade to the latest kernel?
Oh, that's right you can't upgrade just the kernel, you have to upgrade the whole machine. Perhaps you should be comparing to upgrading a distribution which is easily within the realm of possiblity of anyone who can hit the enter key.
I do tend to agree with you on the adding new hardware bit. Anyone know any software that makes this trivial?
Windows compatibility is important... (Score:3, Funny)
so what? (Score:2, Funny)
Dump linux, use AOL and eat hamburgers
My registry is prepared for judgement; is yours? (Score:2, Informative)
Suffice it to say that the problem was solved while these id10ts were busily browsing for p0rn:
Win4Lin, which has actually worked for the past two years and is going to be distributed with Mandrake 8.2.
Plex86, whose name changes on a regular schedule.
VMWare, still usable despite the developers' best efforts.
Wine, the massive, ongoing masturb^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemulation effort.
All of these work (listed in decreasing order of compatibility). Lin4Win is actually kept up to date, and is the only solution that runs Windows faster in emulation than in native mode (because it uses the Linux filesystem and block cache). This also keeps the registry from getting trashed -- even after 2+ years, my registry is still clean and Windows hasn't scribbled over itself.
In fact, Win4Lin works so well that some disgruntled Wine developers took it upon themselves to announce Netraverse's demise on f*ckedcompany last summer. That's high praise indeed.
P.S. -- I don't work for Netraverse, I'm just extremely happy with Win4Lin and their free upgrades for life.
Re:My registry is prepared for judgement; is yours (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm, let's see. The problem with Win4lin is that IT REQUIRES ONE TO OWN WINDOZE. You STILL must purchase windoze, register windoze, feed the Beast, serve the monopoly. If EVERYONE used Win4Lin, Gates would be happy as a clam because it effectively does the same thing for him and M$ as everyone using just straight windoze. The money and propriatory software and APIs are still "accepted" as "standards".
Win4lin and VMWare are ONLY useful for those who own or have windoze by other means (ahem). It doesn't do anything to eliminate or reduce the monopoly power and abuse of M$. It serves to perpetuate it.
Wine, on the other hand, has the potential to HURT M$ and its monopoly hold on the desktop. ONLY Wine is set for this. It doesn't require windoze. No one need purchase or acquire by other means (ahem) windoze. This directly impacts negatively on M$. The more successful Wine is, the better. M$ gets hit, money is saved (a GREAT deal of wasted, unethically obtained money).
It is FAR better to not have to pay M$ a dime than to STILL have to purchase their crapOS. It is far more satisfactory on an emotional level too to thumb your nose at Gates and say "Na-na! I am running windoze software without owning or paying for windoze! Na-na! I don't NEED you!."
Wine (and Lindows, if it actually turns out to be more than vapor...like Freedows) is the ONLY viable future means to use the software you want from the windoze world without feeding the Beast money.
Re:My registry is prepared for judgement; is yours (Score:2)
Re:My registry is prepared for judgement; is yours (Score:2)
Wine works for some things I have tried. The only things I really care about thus far are games. A couple games work, most don't (that I have tried).
I may have need to get Word or some other non-game app to work but so far, I haven't managed to get them to work. I have found BIG problems with trying to get wine to work with virtually any WinME app. I can't even get notepad or minesweeper to run under wine. What of Win2k? How does wine fare with that one? I have that available to me too and would almost prefer to replace ME.
Re:For games, use a REAL emulator (Score:2)
No no, NOT console games (I hate arcade crap). I mean things like Half-Life, Deus Ex, Homeworld, etc. Half-Life is perfect in wine but most of the other such games I've tried are fair to middlin or DOA. This is virtually the ONLY reason I have and use wine. There is no point to Windoze software otherwise.
Java (Score:3, Insightful)
They are getting faster, in fact Sun plans to release JDK1.4 soon, and it is MUCH faster than JDK1.3.
Now, once Java is comparable fast to native applications, (which in some situations it already is), developers can start writing applications in Java commercially.
Once this happens, any OS that supports Java can run those applications. Example:
Lets say some day down the line, 20% of the programs you can purchase in the store is written in Java.. well, that means ANY operating system can run those programs if they elect to run the OPEN java specs.
So in summary, the true way to open up the opearting system market is to get developers to use Java.
Re:Java (Score:2)
Ain't gonna happen (20% of software being Java). You MAY see a few digits percent of software being C# but Java? No.
Unless M$ is, as the holdout hero states in the M$ lawsuit want, required to supply a fully compatible/functional Java with doze, Java is looking to go flat as C#, leveraged by monopoly power, is forced down everyone's throat.
In any case, sorry, but Java apps are OK now and again but I fricking HATE the way, just like netscape and all Motif/lesstif apps, Java apps break your theme(s). They have their own willy-nilly and ugly look and feel and do NOT integrate well or properly into ANY system theme (in KDE or Gnome).
Re:Java (Score:2)
OK...I haven't been keeping abreast of Java details. Nonetheless, I feel that the liklihood of Java becoming a significant player along the lines originally suggested is a pipe dream.
I would LIKE for Java to win out over C# but with the still rampant M$ gorilla behind it, leveraging its ongoing monopoly, I just can't see Java overcoming C# once the latter takes off.
I wouldn't even mind THIS so much if it weren't for the ASSURED hooks that M$ will place in its own C# variants so that only M$ platforms will FULLY play with it well. If C# were taken out of M$'s hands and then M$ required to go along with the same C# standards that everyone else would have to go along with, then it wouldn't matter to me if C# OR Java took off.
apples and pears. (Score:2)
Re:Java (Score:2, Interesting)
There are Scheme and Python compilers out there that make JVM bytecode. It is possible to make a C++ compiler to output JVM bytecode. The JVM is just a virtual computer so to speak and it reads Class files
Sun has done a good job of protecting the integrity of Java, and even sued M$ and won!
As far as JVMs go. IBM made a wicked fast one that in a lot of situations it ran Java code faster than MSVC could run C++ code. And JVMs will just get faster as time goes on.
In fact, some day JVMs will be faster than assembly. And yes that is possible
But imagine this.. lets say you are runnig notepad, than you load up calculator.. imagine if your opearting system could find the simularities between the two programs and only load the differences betweenc calculator and notepad.
It would take more CPU cycles to run each program, but both programs would stay in CPU cache longer and actually run faster in a multitasking environment.
Don't forget that JVMs can optimize for the specific processor they are running on.
But once again, i'll reiterate. If you write a program on the Java platform today, it will get faster through time, and work on any new opearting system. It is smarter to try to convince companies to write in Java than it is to try to reverse engineer undocumented buggy APIs made by a company called Microsoft.
Well... (Score:2)
Of Course (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course we do. Just think about it. If a console system somehow played games from the PS2, GameCube, XBox, Super Nintendo, Genesis, and ROMs downloaded off the internet for any of those systems AND Mame... wouldn't you buy it? If an HDTV set somehow came with built-in VHS player and a built-in DVD player that could play VCDs, any music format you wanted on a CD or CD-R, AND burn both CDs, CD-Rs, and DVDs, including off another DVD... wouldn't you buy it? Of course you would. These things would do anything, take up less space than several different consoles/players, be much easier to setup, and would probably cost less.
The point? The thing that does everything, does it right, and does it at an acceptable price is the best thing out there. If Linux could run just about any program you wanted, no matter what operating system it was originally meant for, it would be the perfect operating system. It would be the operating system equivalent to a Swiss Army Knife, and would be a perfect alternative to the system that most computer users have to put up with now: Use Windows alone or have Windows on one partition and Linux on the other. Because of the limitations of work, school, and gaming, most people NEED to use some Windows programs. To make it more accessable to those people, Linux should definitely run Windows programs, and if possible flawlessly.
Windows on Linux, or a linux version of OS X? (Score:2, Interesting)
For anyone who can't see what I'm trying to get at, screw you for not being able to read my mind. Otherwise, I'm probably just full of it...
Stupid Question (Score:2, Insightful)
So you don't want me to run my Windows software on Linux? You WANT me to use Windows instead??? I don't get it. If you want to increase the Linux user base, you gotta allow for new people coming over, and for those new people to want to be able to use some of their favorite aps. So what if its on Lindows? I'd think that anything != Microsoft == Good or at least better. And besides, not all Windows software is Microsoft software. Think of the dozens of games made for Windows that have yet to be ported over to Linux. And what about wine? Doesn't it encourage the same thing??
Try OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
Wroot
Doing it the hard way (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's lock-in of customers and developers is based solely on its illegal monopoly. In the plainest possible terms, the lock-in is a violation of the rights of software customers and competitors. Customes suffer through reduced innovation and competition by software providers. Competitors suffer because Microsoft uses the Windows/Office fortress to terrorize the entire software community.
Microsoft's illegal behavior results in great harm, and that harm can only be stopped and remedied through legal and regulatory means. If Lindows and Wine manage to capture any important portion of the desktop, it will be ten years out. (Heck, Windows XP won't even capture the desktop completely for four or five years!)
I personally don't feel like waiting ten years for a maybe. I support anyone who supports strong sanctions against the Microsoft monopoly. I don't buy Microsoft unless I have to. (I wouldn't have an XBox in my house if they were giving them away.)
Arguing a moot point (Score:2, Interesting)
The Microsoft Dilemma (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Network effects matter (Score:2)
So what?
I spend more money on CDs than my CD player cost.
I spend more money on DVDs than my DVD player cost.
I spent more money on vinyl than my turntable cost.
I spent more money on VHS tapes than my VCR cost, especially if you count rentals.
I spent more money on books than my lamp and glasses cost.
Re:Michael looks like ego maniac (Score:2)
A look and comment on the personality of the head cheese IS valid. His egomania or any other foibles, deficiencies, etc, have a DIRECT link to the likely future behavior of the company the person directs.
Gates is an egomaniac with a number of personality failings (along with Ballmer) that DIRECTLY lead to the monopolist, unethical and illegal behavior of the company they run. Personality traits ARE validly considered.
Re:Michael looks like ego maniac (Score:2)
Gee, bet Lindows is going to be great! ;P
Re:Stability of Linmux and compatibility with Wind (Score:2)
You are correct about the slowness. Both KDE and Gnome (and Windows) are forcing huge amounts of complexity on use because nobody designing these has had an actual "innovation". Try ROX or some of the tiny window managers to see some attempts to be different, and compare their sizes to KDE/Gnome/Windows. Unfortunatly I am starting to despair that we will never see an "innovation" because of the vast number of sheep that are locked into the Windows interface, even MicroSoft is having trouble making any changes!
Technically Linux is slower because of Xlib's horrid design. This is a fact and something should be done about it. The solution is not to make some forced toolkit/dll, though, it is to write *HARD* code to do *FAST, POWERFUL* graphics operations.
Re:nonsensical (Score:2)
Me thinks that Wine uses the damnable BSD license so NOTHING has to be given back. They get to make any changes or improvements they like and the rest of us get squat for it unless we tote up with $$$.