SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively 293
Gunder123 writes: "A new (open source in the past, but not anymore) operating system, SkyOS, in its latest version can run Linux binaries unmodified, without the need of a recompilation, enriching its own application base this way. Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here. Their future plans involve also an emulation layer for Windows applications, pretty much what ReactOS tries to do for the last few years for the WindowsNT model."
Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:5, Funny)
1. Write free software.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:4, Informative)
Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.
For those who doesn't know, Robert Szeleney is the man behind SkyOS.
Do what is right! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do what is right! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do what is right! (Score:2)
While he can stop releasing new versions in such a fashion (in he ever did) he can't revoke the old license.
If (and this is a big if) he closed the source after implying that it would always be open, I think that anyone with the old code is justified in forking it at the last public version. After all, if he was the driving force, the main branch will get better and the forks will die off. If he merely cribbed the work of others, they will become dominant when his stagnates.
Re:Do what is right! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was involved in a project and it was suddenly closed-sourced around me, after I had contributed with the idea that it would be open, I'd fork it too.
If you want to play "what have you done" it's almost always the person who closes the source who has done the least. They can't make something on their own, but they get greedy later and want to own it, despite being unable to make it without help.
Not that this was done with SkyOS. But if it was, forking the code is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:2)
what a deal.
Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:2)
Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (Score:2)
Ahh, but what's to say he won't start charging for the priviledge of obtaining the source code in the future? Or maybe he'll tire of having to sendout the source, so he'll just stop one day. The GPL is good in this respect because you don't have to worry about this. It was born in a time when companies who traditionally gave out source code decided it wasn't worth it anymore, or there was extra revenue to be made off of the initial sale. Yes, you can still find companies that will give you source code, but at what cost? The GPL ensures you get everything up front, with irrevocable rights.
More than likely the author of SkyOS doesn't want to become another "open source" OS, and get lost in the shuffle. Too bad for him. The bench of obsolesced and abandoned OSes always has room for one more. Just ask BeOS.
From the horses mouth... (Score:2, Informative)
5. Do you accept help and source code or bug fixes from third parties? Do you put restrictions to third parties regarding coding style etc?
Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.
gosand [poundingsand.com] (bracing for the "all your base" comments)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not all syscalls implemented (Score:5, Interesting)
>Emulation layers
>
>Linux
> 6% of all linux syscalls implemented
> Support for static linked ELF i386 binaries only
Well I guess any binary using any of the remaining
94% system calls will not work... hmmm....
gotta love hello world! (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if it's the spiffy GNU hello.c which includes its own email client.
Seriously, they only support a very small subset of calls thus far.
Say WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
That has to be one of the rudest things that I have seen on Slashdot in years. To suggest that just because some Linux binaries can run on another OS with no evidence is absolutely disgusting.
Of course, even more disgusting is that Timothy posted it, but I think everyone realizes Slashdot has a pretty fucked up editorial policy so I shall not continue.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
For example, if I write a GPL'd grep with a spiffy new regular expression syntax, that does not in any way preclude someone else from writing the same utilitiy under a closed-source license.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:1)
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing GPL code is one way to accomplish Linux compatability quickly and painlessly (until you get found out). Hopefully they didn't do it that way, but some businesses have done worse.
Asking the question may push someone to come up with a way to test the emulation code with reasonable certainty (i.e. testing for a couple of unusual quirks in the GPL code). I think that it's far better to know, one way or the other, than to be wilfully blind to the issue.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
No, he did not. I am wondering many things right now, like maybe if you're an idiot. But now since I've written it, I'm not only wondering it, but suggesting it in a public forum, two totally different things....
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
As it is, they're only claiming to emulate about a dozen system calls, so it should be pretty easy to prove that they're {not,} using stolen code.
Ultimately, it's going to be pretty hard to conclusivly {dis,}prove the use of stolen code without looking at the source code. If you know which compiler they used, you might be able recompile the GPL code with the same compiler and look for comon code sequences, but even that is circumstantial evidence, unless you get an incredible level of similarity.
Reading Slashdot articles 101 (Score:4, Informative)
Nathan
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
It seems like a fair question. "I wonder if
To completely implement a system capable of behaving like Linux without violating the licence would take an enormous amount of work. It certainly IS possible and could be done with a determined effort, but if somebody shows up out of the blue claiming they've done it, I think it is a fair question to wonder if they did it fairly, and if so, how.
I didn't interpret his statement as alleging a GPL violation. It just does seem surprising that one could do it without an open source licence as a force multiplier. Sometimes things are surprising because they are really high quality work and sometimes they are surprising because they ripped somebody off. It's healthy skepticism to probe which.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
That's a perfect example to distinguish. You have no reason to wonder about this since it is completely mundane that I don't.
Read the other comments. Intercepting system calls is not hard, and others have done it. This sort of posting betrays more of the ignorance of the poster than anything else.
The answer to a question is irrelevent to assessing the merits of the question. Generally one asks a question precisely because one doesn't know the answer or the reasoning behind it, and pretty much you never learn anything usefull UNLESS you ask questions you don't know the answer to.
If the guy did all the work originally and obeyed the GPL licence, then he should be proud of it and glad to know that some people find that a surprising accomplishment.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:3, Informative)
There's an excellent set of articles at the O'Reilly Network [oreillynet.com] on just how they accomplish this [onlamp.com].
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
and for that matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare the immediate reaction of "did they violate GPL" with a absolutely no basis, in the face of the fact that it would be *more* difficult to get appropriate code from linux than from bsd, to the "wait and ask why" reaction to theft of bsd code by linux a couple of weeks ago.
Then let's all head down to the High Church of Emacs and sing the hymn, "GPL, GPL, uber alles" . . .
hawk
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:3, Flamebait)
Besides, this is exactly why the GPL is stupid in the first place. It supports Open Source like the holy jihad, but does it support open standards ? Well, if a non-open source OS wants to be Linux compatible, I guess they're theives right ? Nice open standards.
Gee, Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. I wonder if there's any IP theft going on there. Oh wait, the BSD licence supports sharing rather than screaming violation.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
It's under the BSD license because it's meant to promote interoperability. The original stack, I believe, was written (by Bill Joy, perhaps?) because the existing ones were so shitty. It was intended as a standard to be used by everyone. If not for this sort of work, we'd be stuck with IPX, AppleTalk, DECnet, etc. At any rate, the frequently-repeated declaration that MS (here, Linux) is using BSD code misses the mark quite a bit. The Internet is essentially built on that code at this point. Try finding a modern OS that doesn't support sockets- that's a Berkeley innovation. FreeBSD and the like are as about far removed from that original code as Linux is.
The difference here is that the TCP/IP stack was intended from the beginning to be incorporated everywhere; it wasn't based on any stupid philosophy about free software. Same idea as X11- they're more interested in promoting an open standard, in this case with large amounts of code (which is ultimately less important than the standard itself- what if "TCP/IP" were GPL'd, or patented?). MS is right that code like that should be under a very unrestrictive license. Other innovations, like scripting languages, daemons, OS kernels, compilers, etc., should be under whatever license the writer feels like. Every license has its place, despite what the fruitcakes here say.
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
No, it itsn't. Other portions of Linux take code from *BSD, but definitively not the TCP/IP stack.
Proof of this: when you see a security alert on a general issue in the original BSD implementation of TCP/IP, 99% of the times it applies to *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, and Windows too, but NOT to Linux, because it has its own implementation.
Ask Alan Cox if you are still in doubt.
Yeah, like WINE runs all windows binaries... (Score:3, Informative)
GPL violation (Score:1)
It has to have some stuff behave exactly the same, or just wouldn't work. And how do you figure this out without looking at the original source?
Re:GPL violation (Score:5, Interesting)
Is wine in violation with microsoft copyright?
Re:GPL violation (Score:2)
Re:GPL violation (Score:5, Insightful)
That's completely backwards. When writing an emulation layer (I speak from experience...if you ever ran a System V 286 binary on a System V 386 Unix or an SCO Xenix 286 binary on a Systemv V 386 Unix, you were using the emulation layer Darryl Richman, Carl Hensler, and I wrote when we worked at Interactive), you do not want to use actual code from the OS you are emulating. That code doesn't work like your OS works (if it did...you wouldn't need an emulation layer...you'd just need some argument munging and other trivial stuff).
The hard thing about an emulation layer is finding out just what the thing you are emulating does. An emulation layer has to not just follow the written spec (if there is one), but also has to implement the same bugs as the thing you are emulating, and follow the same choices where there was leeway in the spec, or you might break binary compatibility.
When emulating something that is open source, like Linux, you have the documentation you need: the source code. You read it to find out what the real behaviour is, and then implement that in a way that fits in with the way your OS works. It simple is almost never going to be faster to rip the actual code and try to use it.
When emulating a closed source thing like Windows, however, finding out the actual behaviour you need to emulate (remember...gotta match the actual behaviour, not just what the spec says) can take much experimenting and disassembly. It is much more temping (because it can actually save a lot of time), to rip some DLLs from Windows, and cobble together a framework to run them under your system.
So, just from a "what might developer's do" point of view, it is actually more likely a Windows emulation project would use parts of Windows they should not use than a Linux emulation project would use parts of Linux they should not use.
Re:GPL violation (Score:3, Funny)
But just this once!
Don't think I'll back down so easy next time! 8-)
Re:GPL violation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPL violation (Score:2, Informative)
Well, sort of legitimate IMHO
Re:GPL violation (Score:3, Informative)
Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).
Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.
The same way it's possible to build (Score:2)
All they have to do is implement the proper syscalls, which are documented in the linux source code. They don't even need source to do this.
What do you mean 'without looking at the original source'. Anyone is free to look at the linux kernel source, for any reason.
ANd learn what syscalls are...
Re:The same way it's possible to build (Score:2)
With GPL code, you're only free to look at the code if the derivative source is going to be publicly available. You could, however, look at the linux documentation to figure out how stuff works, ad then do your own implementation (but someone else should be doing the docs for you, then).
You could also look at BSD licensed code that calls the GPL routine to see how it's used. That's legal because you're free to do whatever you want with GPL code. You might, however, run into a technical glitch if it turns out that the BSD code was 'tainted' with GPL code. (this would have the BSD code in probable violation of the GPL license, too - but with less liklihood of a screaming meanie fit on the part of the GPL programmer)
Where did you hear that? (Score:2)
But you can LOOK at it to see how the API works all you want.
I think you are a bit confused.
If he's doing his own OS, it's not beneficial to use the linux source *anyway*. All he's doing is implementing syscalls.. which simply means making the functionst in his own OS take the same args as the linux ones, in laymans terms. Ripping the guts out of the kernel routines in linux would be almost useless.
Re:Where did you hear that? (Score:2)
This is part of what occurred in the IBM/Phoenix trial (as I understand it). Phoenix's ability to prove that they'd taken strong measures to avoid contamination raised the bar for IBM and IBM wasn't able to get over it.
If you look at the code, you weaken your defences in the case of a (threatened) lawsuit.
Re:GPL violation (Score:2)
The GPL only restricts the distribution of the original and derivative works (albeit with a very liberal interpretation of "derivative"). There is ZERO restriction on looking at the code and seeing how it works. There is ZERO restriction on 'reverse engineering' it. Writing an Linux emulation layer without violating the GPL would be trivial (but tedious) for anyone familiar with kernel programming.
It has to have some stuff behave exactly the same, or just wouldn't work.
Linux is under copyright but it is not under patent. That means that you can legally duplicate how the stuff is done.
Why SkyOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm having a hard enough time getting our office staff to switch to KDE. Why would I want to mess about with SkyOS? Does anyone know?
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as there is room for a better operating system, people should be making a better operating system.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
It's not "attitudes toward operating systems that are not Linux", it's attitudes toward operating systems that are not Free as in speech.
If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:5, Informative)
It's statements like that which make the rest of the world suspect we are a brainwashed cult just waiting for the Koolaid to arrive.
The right to free speech is a right that belongs to the speaker, and not to the listener. Linux is a manifestation of Linus Torvald's free speech. SkyOS is a manifestation of its authors' free speech. Any OS is a product of its authors' free speech. You have your own right of free speech but it is not predicated upon the existance of any operating system.
It would make sense to say that you only want operating systems that are "Free Software", or operating systems that are "Open Source", or operating systems that grant you specific permissions. But to say that you only want operating systems that are "free as in speech" is a non sequitur. It only makes sense if you have undergone the GNU Indoctrination Protocols, as it is not a sensible English phrase.
(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
1) Don't post to forums
2) View Slashdot with Internet Explorer
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)
Where the heck do you get that from? MOST /. readers? There are probably over half a million /. readers now. do you really think that the majority of them are hostile towards non-Linux OSes? I think there is a rather vocal, but tiny minority that are. I don't think you can find evidence of anything beyond that.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
regarding your sig: while I am in no way religious, I believe that the quote is ignorant and actually false.
You make a powerful argument there. I don't think I can form a response to that.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
The reason this is important is not so much that you or I will modify the code, but that there are people out there that can (And will) do it, if only given the chance. Open Source and Free Software models allow for a greater chance of that working.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should arrest and jail your High School civics teacher for fraud.
"Free Speech" means speech that is unrestricted. In the context of western civilization is usually refers to the legal right to speak without legal hinderances, particularly with regards to political opinion, though it also covers non-political expressions of a creative, commercial or mundane nature.
"Free Software" may indeed mean "allowed to do (almost) whatever you want with it". But that is NOT what "Free Speech" means.
In regards to software, there are two kinds of "speech" available. The first is the "speech" of actually creating the software. The second is the "speech" of modifying and/or redistributing the first kind. The first kind is a legal and unalienable right. Unfortunately, the second is not an unalienable right, but a granted priviledge. Despite the existance of the first ammendment to the US Constitution, you are not allowed to take the political writings of Richard Stallman and modify them for redistribution. You are not allowed to take the New York Times and republish it as the Yonkers Yodeler.
The right to your own speech is unalienable and protected by law. The right to someone else's speech is not. By equating Free Software with Free Speech, you are asserting that the ability to modify and redistribute someone else's creative works is an unalienable right that should be enforced by law. But that is not how rights work. A right is something that you POSSESS. It is not something that you TAKE from someone else.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Two group them into broad categories, there are three common meanings: free from obligation (free beer); free from external authority (free speech); and unrestricted or unhindered (free use).
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
which, of course, means free to do whatever we want with the building blocks...
I love it! It gets precisely the right point across.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Actually, I believe you are talking about copyright. Copyright is what keeps me from reprinting the NY Times, and I don't believe the Constitution (or its amendments) says ANYTHING about copyright.
I said allowed to do almost anything with Free Software for a reason. I am not allowed to strip the software of credit from its original creator. There is still a license that one must agree to use with free software... However, I am completely within my right to take any GPL software and charge whatever I want for my service of providing it to you. Try doing THAT with your copy of Windows2000.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You might wanna read it sometime.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Every set of radically new ideas makes the rest of the world worry, and every set of radically new ideas comes with its own set of redefinitions of old worlds.
> most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems
I haven't seen that on the boards, besides the fact that any means you would have of judging that would be wildly unscientific and inaccurate.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
That attitude is more like SHOVING open source.
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
sigh...
Your posting is mediocre (Score:4)
Your posting is mediocre because you provide no justification whatsoever for your claims. For example, you could have said that the Linux SCSI implementation is very poor, or that it's based on the 30-year-old Unix paradigm. And in the case of SCSI, you would have been right, in the case of Unix, you would have had to demonstrate how something else works better, which would not have been easy, and too many people who try only show their lack of grounding in operating systems design. But you didn't even try.
Bruce
Your logic is flawed (Score:2)
If Windows was the only operating system in existence today, by your logic, it would be unjustified to say that "Windows fails as an operating system on many levels". The fact that there is nothing that currently works better simply means that new ideas need to be explored. It does NOT mean that the current system is the best possible system.
Yes, the parent poster's comment was lacking in quality, but that doesn't make the statement incorrect.
Re:Your posting is mediocre (Score:2)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why SkyOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, it's because operating systems are like societies. The more time you spend using or developing for operating system A, the less you'll spend using/developing operating system B. Furthermore, every non-mainstream OS's users want to see it get the "critical mass" of users and developers necessary to push it into the mainstream where they it will enjoy the benefits of additional software and support. When they instead see other OS's being used or promoted, they view them (rightly or wrongly) as competition for their own OS/culture. Hence the criticism; they are trying to protect their own interests by deprecating the "competition".
How is it different... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is it different... (Score:2)
Re:How is it different... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a little bit harder to prove code-stealing without access to the emulation source code, thus the speculative questions.
If they gave general access to their source code, then it'd be pretty easy to prove the question one way or the other (but then they'd also be halfway to being open-source again, too .. grin).
Re:How is it different... (Score:2)
> license violations there.
yeah, but you don't hear many reports about successfully running the programs, either
(Yes, I know that many do, and I've used it on a few things that surprised me when they work. It still doesn't seem to fall in the category of "generally usuable in the forseeable future")
hawk
What's the point... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the point... (Score:2, Funny)
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1985:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Windows and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1983:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Macintosh and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Other Free OS alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
Pros: its got good backing (who else puts the DOT in dotGone
Cons: erm.. availability of code
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor imitation... (Score:3, Funny)
Future conversation...
Geek acolyte: Whatcha runnin'?
Elder Geek:I've got SkyOS emulating Slackware, with WINE layered over that so I can use all my l00t wArEz.
Acolyte:Cool! How'z Mozilla run on it?
Elder: Still a little buggy -- but imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
Probably not a violation (Score:5, Informative)
In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.
-CT
Re:Probably not a violation (Score:3, Interesting)
Things definitely are moving in this direction. I just read on the netbsd-discuss mailing list that those folks are considering abandoning the slow BSD-style stack-based kernel calls, in favor of the quick register-based kernel call syntax favored by Linux and Solaris. If they do that, most syscalls will differ only in call number from the ones in Linux.
-all dead homiez
It's a waste of time, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of the licensing terms, this guy seriously doesn't expect to do anything truly useful with this OS.
Remember that Torvalds initially didn't use the GPL for the kernel.
Also note that Caldera has a 'distribution' that doesn't even use the kernel but rather reimplements a 'personality' [caldera.com] -- I mean, even Unisys likes it !(I'm being sarcastic)
Understand, though, I am not criticising his intent -- he has an itch; he wants to scratch. At least he's pursuing his own muse.
running linux binaries on non-linux OSs (Score:2, Interesting)
ReactOS not just going for app compatibility (Score:5, Interesting)
- Jason
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
---
I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?
Fucking Retards (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about how that kind of emulation works, you just do system call translation. What on earth code would you steal? This is code that, by design, HAS to be original.
Slashdot's editors truly need to be more careful, and they need to issue an apology to SkyOS for making such an irrational accusation.
Re:That post is rude and unnecessary (Score:2)
You are quite correct in that such a flame should never have gotten moderated up like it did. The reason, however, is that the story at the top level of Slashdot should've never been posted in the first place with thinly-veiled, unsubstantiated implied allegations of potential theft.
Convergence to common binary format : good or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
And all these emulations are very fast, because they are hooks to native OS functions. They aren't 100% emulation, like VMWare. I use Linux binaries daily on OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I can hardly find any significant slowdown between a native BSD application, and the same application compiled for Linux, and run with emulation.
So can we imagine that Linux binaries could become a de facto standard for executables?
We would get something similar to Java, but yet more powerful (no tie to a specific language nor a specific API) . Ok, x86 binaries would only run on x86, but the same binary could run on 95% of the computers, regardless of their operating system. Any sort of application, low-level or high-level. GUI or daemon. And always fast, wrapping native system calls.
The nasty drawback is that people would release more closed-source software.
But OTOH, if you can take all your current applications and easily migrate to any operating system by just copying everything, including binaries, you can save a lot of time. You can also develop applications for customers even if you don't run a similar OS.
Would it be a dream, or a hell?
Pedantic mode on (Score:3, Informative)
That's LINE, http://line.sourceforge.net/
(Pedantic mode off)
Re:Pedantic mode on (Score:2)
Excellent stuff (Score:2)
The nasty drawback is that people would release more closed-source software.
Not necessarily. Those who write open software would have very little reasons to change their philosophy. There would still be the chance to compile (if possible) to get the best performance.
The really interesting thing is, if we stress the fact that those apps will run better and faster on Linux. Sadly, I think that's just the reason companie$ will keep this from happening. Platform locking is done even when it's not technically required.
Likely to be Linux' most important contribution (Score:2)
>for executables?
This is likely to be the most important contribution linux makes, though perhaps not at the binary level.
Unix is defragmenting at the moment, even the versions not using linux binaries. What has been missing is a feasible reference point. With competing Unices, all with pointless differences, no vender could "concede" my moving to a competitor's standard. Linux removes that problems (and in many cases, makes sense to adopt). Still, the benefit of Linux's *existence* gives a common "standard" which the rest can move to while having political cover/saving face . . .
hawk
Hopefully no GPL violations... (Score:2)
Stealing (Score:2)
Why not? They've already stole the Windows 95 icons [eugenia.co.uk].
Re:but will it run... (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows Unix Emulation by MS (Score:2)
Re:gpl violations? how would you know? (Score:3, Funny)
Windows would gain the availability of many programs that do not have equivalents in the windows world (plus for MS users) Downside would be cost to support Winux (not large compared to cost of developing NT, linux is much less complicated then windows APIS). 98% of the Linux API is easily matched to the kernel, the 2% leftover would not be too challenging (e.g. cygwin or VMWare could be bribed into completing the job or licensing the base to MS)
The linux kernel & device drivers would not be supported directly by Winux, but by mapping to windows equivalents. Linux kernels and drivers would not be functional under Winux, but MS could build the most commonly needed drivers and document how to add your own. This would be way better than Interix because of the simple -- just copy the binaries around.
MS would be able to claim you could have you cake & eat it too, reduce the risk run Linux Apps and NT and don't get locked out of the use of Word & Excel. They could even claim the advantage of a O/S
Linux would gain exposure by Windows users. They would see advantages and disadvantages of Linux software firsthand without a major investment of time to install Linux, esp. the headaches of dual-boot setup to try. Many open source projects seem to have a Windows option, save time & stop supporting that since Winux would avoid the need for such. Finally, Linux lovers would still be able to say just how bad, unstable, limited, etc. Winux is and that any right-minded person would just use the real thing. And for the coup-de-grace, Linux viruses, trojans, etc. would then be able to bring down Window too.
True believers of either side could ignore the other side, flame about it, or even cooperate with it as suits them personally.
Consumers could buy MS and have a choice as to what kind of software they use.
This obviously made so much sense that it did not stand a chance.
Re:gpl violations? how would you know? (Score:2)
Re:Windows emulation is waste of time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory "New OS" Slashdot Reaction (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Good,Bad and the Ugly (Score:2)
Why is this so Bad? It's probably easier for many people (esp. end users) than recompiling, which would probably involve some level of porting of the program. And there are lots of Linux binaries available already.
There's nothing bad about increasing the potential user base of an open source program. For many people it makes no difference if it's beer not speech free. And after they have it running, we can hint at the fact that it would run better and faster on linux ... :-)