Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will Linux For Windows Change The World?

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the making-inroads dept.

Windows 770

An anonymous reader writes "A month ago, a trial version of a little-known Linux application called 'CoLinux' was released that is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. It's the work of a 21-year-old Israeli computer science student and some Japanese open source programmers; in Israel, analysts are already saying it could help transform the software world." (CoLinux is short for Cooperative Linux; we mentioned this project in January as well.)

cancel ×

770 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gah (5, Funny)

inKubus (199753) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843818)

All the ease of use of Unix running on the stability of Windows.

Worst of both worlds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843871)

you read the title...

Conquering Windows (0, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843926)

Here's a list of things linux needs to conquer windows.

1.) cleartype fonts
2.) automatic directX compatibility for games
3.) one solid universal gui

It's a pretty short list, and I just don't think this project is filling the gap just quite yet.

Re:Conquering Windows (5, Funny)

AndrewHowe (60826) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843995)

4.) ???
5.) Users

Re:Conquering Windows (4, Informative)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8844001)

cleartype fonts? You mean sub-pixel hinting? That's been available for a long time.

Re:Gah (1)

kinzillah (662884) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843978)

Seriously though. This is quite a good thing. I'm really really interested in getting windows under linux at native speeds, however, or even at a hit if that would guarantee a windows crash won't take linux with it. VMWare is good, but painfully slow for running photoshop, and forget 3D applications. I'm perfectly happy to run windows for these things (I'd prefer native linux applications, but hey) if the all windows can bring down is itself. I'd like to see some of the work done here applied to doing this, and from the looks of the article, some of the concepts may apply.

OMFG! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843819)

Fuck all NIGGERS!

Fuck you #CODERS!

fp fp fp (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843820)

first post

first post

first post

U = TEH FAILUR (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843840)

omg you fail it like a true nigger fag

Hmmmmmm (5, Funny)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843821)

So would this be: In Soviet Israel, Windows Runs Linux?

First for me (-1, Offtopic)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843822)

Never caught on this quick.

whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843824)

that ruins the whole point. we wanna get rid of windows.

Re:whatever (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843956)

I think it's just another false roadblock they've constructed. People have easily been able to use Linux for years, in one way or the other, and it's still not taking off on the desktop. The OSS community have (once again, for the millionth time) solved a problem that doesn't really exist. Kudos.

No, it won't change anything. Interesting and geeky, but nothing that will have an 0.00001% impact on market share.

Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (4, Interesting)

Alternate Interior (725192) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843825)

Whats the difference between this and Cygwin? Or (though I haven't tried it, MS SFU). Cygwin seems to run extremely fast and reliably already. Of course, Cygwin doesn't run executables other than standard Windows EXEs, but what isn't available for Cygwin (or natively on Windows) already? This seems like a project to run Linux for the sake of Linux

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (4, Funny)

wmspringer (569211) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843851)

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (5, Informative)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843884)

The difference would be that you can run already availble Linux binaries under Windows rather than trying to get programs to work and compile for Windows under Cygwin.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (0)

Alternate Interior (725192) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843918)

You mean the already available binaries bundled with Cygwin? Or coming up with a Win 32 copy of Mozilla? Or GCC? Or even the Gimp? Or do you mean Open GL apps? Or Vim? Emacs? Etc etc etc.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (2, Insightful)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843938)

There are still many many many (many) pieces of software for linux that will probably never get a real Windows port. Linux emulation for Windows will make it easier to use this software.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (1)

at2000 (715252) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843954)

I would say postfix, Mr Project, evolution and GNOME. I can't imagine when they can be ported to Windows.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (5, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843960)

You mean the already available binaries bundled with Cygwin? Or coming up with a Win 32 copy of Mozilla? Or GCC? Or even the Gimp? Or do you mean Open GL apps? Or Vim? Emacs? Etc etc etc.

Nope.

Any existing linux binary. Any new linux binary.

Like that internal application that your company wrote whose source got lost.

Or the complicated one you got debugged and deployed on your department's native Linux platforms and you want to be sure runs EXACTLY THE SAME WAY on the boss' Windows box.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8844014)

Sounds like a very small (and frankly, pointless) niche market.

If you have some critical peice of software that you lost the source for, you're going to be forced to rewrite it from scratch sooner or later. Bugs will crop up that can't be fixed, and you'll want to add features that you can't add.

Re:Cygwin, MS Services for Unix? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843973)

Windows 2000 has a POSIX subsystem, so what's the point? Noone wanted to use it because the Win32 subsystem gave more power to the application developer because it supported the Windows Messaging System. The POSIX subsystem was intended to make it easier to port programs to windows, but noone used it, so it was removed in XP and later. If Windows already had a POSIX subsystem (which was never used), why would anyone want to run basically a Linux virtual machine that has *less* power?

Difference: THIS WILL CHANGE THE WORLD!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8844008)

How, nobody knows. Slashdot never exaggerates the impact of these new Linux tools, though, so it must be true!!!!

It's going to make a fundamental impact on the way we use computers, or something. Everything will change, uh, somehow. So all those people who were chained to their windows computers and unable to use a simple point and click installer can now run Linux on Windows! Which is a funamental paradigm shift in...uh....computer operation for, uh....someone. Or something.

BUT THIS IS REALLY REALLY BIG AND STUFF!!!!!!!!

Good idea (5, Interesting)

Joe U (443617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843826)

It's about time someone thought of doing this.

The NT(2000/XP) kernel has had the ability to run other native applications for a while.

It sounds like they are going the same way that Win16/WOW, OS/2 and Posix apps currently get run in Windows. There's no reason not to add Linux to this list.

Re:Good idea (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843966)

From what I've heard, the subsystems ou mentioned are becoming RARER on Windows.

I'm not so sure the OS/2 subsysem is still there, nor the Posix.

It's just a question of time before MS drop the Win16 support altogether, etc...

blah blah blah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843827)

first post!

FP? On 56K? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843828)

Could it be? bare pwnt? DiKKy shitheaped? Owned by rolloffle?

Stinking Arabs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843830)

Leave it to the Jews to show them up.

possibly not (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843832)

but how would it make linux more popular when they dont have to get rid of windows to run linux easily?

Re:possibly not (4, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843895)

What the heck, I'll be Captain Obvious here:

The biggest benefit I see is that people could start running (and liking?) Linux applications without having to make "the big switch." Once they realize that they like Linux better and [hopefully] can do everything they need to under Linux, then the next computer they buy may run Linux alone. It's certainly more elegant and appealing to current Windows users than just telling them they're unsophisticated dolts for not using Linux.

Re:possibly not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843947)

Like others have said, there exists vmware and cygwin which do the exact same things just not "natively". The existing solutions have not jumpstarted any big "change of the world". This is not to say that linux is bad or undesirable to windows in anyway. I equate this claim to be up there with the likes of the segway.

Re:possibly not (2, Insightful)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843967)

They could be doing that now, easier in fact than this, with a live cd. It would still require someone with technical knowhow to set this up on an office full of computers. They could just as easily set up a whole mess of linux installations or just custom live cd's.

I doubt this will turn to much, it seems like a toy for geeks.

Re:possibly not (1)

tonyray (215820) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843996)

It will give people a chance to try Linux apps without installing Linux. Once they feel comfortable with Linux apps, they will feel better about switching from Windows.

ARGH!!! Froze my computer up! (2, Informative)

MadWicKdWire (734140) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843833)

Whatever you do, don't run 'X -configure' in it! It hard locks the system.

PS: There is a bug in the libpam-runtime, so have fun doing any sort of apt-get upgrade action.

Re:ARGH!!! Froze my computer up! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8844006)

Hold on a minute, I'm sure there's some way to blame the lockup on Bill Gates...

Seems Like (3, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843835)

Seems Like what apple has done with Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X

Re:Seems Like (Sore:5, Fuck'n Awesome) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843917)

Not really kid... I think maybe you just like to hear yourself talk. Why don't you go play a game of hide-and-go-fuck-yourself?

Re:Seems Like (Sore:5, Fuck'n Awesome) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843948)

How do you play?

What's the difference (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843841)

Between this and Cygwin?

Re:What's the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843887)

The biggest difference is that this is Linux, and Cygwin isn't. As every one who reads /. knows, Linux is better than anything else... ever. Anyone who thinks differently is a stupid troll.

Cygwin was a nice placeholder until Linux arrived for Windows. Now it is irrelevent. I wouldn't be surprised to see reports of its death shortly.

Like this? (1, Funny)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843932)

Cygwin is dying. Netcraft confirmed it, Cygwin is dying. The beleaguered Cygwin community... ;P

Re:What's the difference (4, Informative)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843991)

>Cygwin was a nice placeholder until Linux arrived for Windows. Now it is irrelevent. I wouldn't be surprised to see reports of its death shortly.

Not so fast, hombré.

CoLinux doesn't even have X yet.

You actually NEED Cygwin/X to be able to display any graphics, unless you want to run text-only... Which is reliable and all, but visually underwhelming for what Linux can actually do.

Re:What's the difference (4, Informative)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843891)

With Cygwin, you aren't running a full blown Linux environment. Here is the Cygwin FAQ [cygwin.com] . I can't read the article (Slashdotted), but judging from the snippet here, it seems like coLinux will run an actual Linux image, which would be a big difference.

Hmm (1, Insightful)

jeffster10304 (770716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843843)

I'd be interested to know the technical aspect of this 'program'. The article is pretty vague on what exactly it does. I wonder how windows handles it, like as a separate process or group of processes, what kind of filesystem it uses, whether it's emulated or not, and how in god's name he got linux kernel code such as virtual memory management and scheduling to work within the windows environment. Very interesting.

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

BJH (11355) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843969)

From what I remember:
1) It runs as a device driver under Windows, which provides it with hardware access.
2) It doesn't yet run X correctly; any screenshots showing an X interface were done by running a separate X server under Windows and having CoLinux talk to that.

Re:Hmm (1)

jeffster10304 (770716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8844011)

Interesting. Now, I'm still wondering how stuff like scheduling is handled. I can imagine this being a deadlock nightmare. Having two schedulers working in unison sounds extremely complicated or extremely buggy. I might take a look at the code.

Re:Hmm (1)

at2000 (715252) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843999)

I think the Wiki site has explained it in detail. It is a kernel driver. It emulates: - A VGA console with keyboard and plain text - An ethernet device which pipes to the TAP driver - Block device which maps to a file in Windows, essentially also possible for a partition and a drive

Why would I want to make linux unstable (0, Troll)

codepunk (167897) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843844)

Why would I wish to make linux unstable by running it on a second rate operating system.

because (1)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843950)

it allows you to not have to set up a dual boot and let users keep their solitaire while you slowly migrate over. If there's something that will only work on Linux (or that you want users using on Linux) you can force them to use just that app in Linux so they don't freak out from being dumped in the lake and expected to swim.

I also would rather see how Linux is progressing by installing it like another application in Windows than having to set up a dual boot or dedicate an entire PC to it. It's far less of a hassle.

Ben

If it works very well... (4, Interesting)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843847)

I could put it to use in places where upper management might still be afraid of Linux, so I can run Linux apps. Another use would be to run more powerful versions of software. One example is a web filtering product called SurfControl [surfcontrol.com] . The Windows versions, hindered by the poor IP stack I'm sure, doesn't have the flexibility and power of the Linux version (Here is a comparison chart [surfcontrol.com] ).

So, the next time your manager is afraid of having a Linux server on the production network, use CoLinux instead?

Re:If it works very well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843988)

I disagree about surf control...it seems that most small companies that would be running this software would benifit from the other features that the win version of surfcontrol has such as time based enforcement and email of violations. Also this chart is not up to date as the Win version has calls to 3rd party virus protection now....

Side by side comparison (2, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843860)

I'm not one to fawn over eyecandy, but seeing the WinXP interface side by side with the twm GUI (actually twm inside of XP!), I really see a major lack of user interface design effort on the Linux side.

Even with the KDE shell (via Knoppix), the XP UI is much more polished and 'consumer friendly' than the KDE shell.

Not that the UI is the most important part of Linux, of course. Linux has many more benefits that makes the lack of a polished UI relatively minor, IMO.

Re:Side by side comparison (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843913)

XP is ugly. Please come back when you have taste.

Re:Side by side comparison (3, Insightful)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843923)

I'm not one to fawn over eyecandy, but seeing the WinXP interface side by side with the twm GUI (actually twm inside of XP!), I really see a major lack of user interface design effort on the Linux side.

You're comparing twm (an ancient window manager used by basically nobody these days) vs. WinXP (the latest and "greatest" from Microsoft)? Give me a break... A comparable Windows GUI for twm is Win1.0...

Even with the KDE shell (via Knoppix), the XP UI is much more polished and 'consumer friendly' than the KDE shell.

I respectfully disagree. The WinXP UI is much more "fisher price": big primary colors, and almost insulting to look at. Win95/98 was much better. But KDE is prettier than both.

Re:Side by side comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843963)

TWM is obselete, and Unix GUIs are designed to let you do work.

Please mod parent down.

How about... (4, Funny)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843861)

Using Wine to emulate Windows to emulate Linux...

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843924)

On an IBM zSeries 900 with 100 Linux images.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8844002)

Imagine a cluster.......

Re:How about... (3, Informative)

damiam (409504) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843934)

Wine doesn't emulate Windows. It reimplements with Windows API under Linux/X. What you describe wouldn't work.

Re:How about... (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843952)

Oops. Reimplements *the* Windows API.

So... (4, Funny)

bprime (734645) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843862)

This kind of makes the "But does it run Linux?" joke a bit deprecated, wouldn't you say? Oh well, there's still Soviet Russia, Hot Grits, and Overlords.

Re:So... (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843946)


There could always be a Beowulf cluster of Windows machines. ...oh wait..

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843992)

But.... Won't somebody think of the children?

Maybe a stupid question... (3, Insightful)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843864)

analysts are already saying it could help transform the software world.

Why? and How?

Hardware is so cheap, I would just get two boxes.

Landrew, guide me!

Re:Maybe a stupid question... (2, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843974)

Hardware is so cheap, I would just get two boxes.

Hardware is not cheap if we are talking about good hardware. It also needs care and feeding (such as UPS power, cooling, new fans once a year, cleaning, rack space, RAM, RAID etc.) You can save a lot in any business environment this way. Even in home conditions you will save a lot on energy if you have only one box 24/7 and not two.

Re:Maybe a stupid question... (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843984)

Imagine a world where you can walk up to any machine, slide a CD in, and be working in your favorite environment in about 30 seconds, with lots of complex network and multimedia apps going. Pull the CD out [pnti.waw.pl] , reboot, and the computer's owners won't necessarily even know you were ever there.

Now imagine a world where you can do the same thing, but it takes 15 seconds to boot, and you don't have to exit the person's applications, log them out, shut down their internet daemons, etc. Walk up to virtually any computer, and you have the full comfort of your standard environment.

Re:Maybe a stupid question... (1)

jaylee7877 (665673) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843987)

Two boxes huh? So you just doubled the number of systems a admin has to manage. Plus, they need to be able to talk to each other and move data back and forth easily. You've doubled your chances of hard disk, cpu, motherboard or network failure... Have fun with that then...

next thing you know... (5, Funny)

jacobhoupt (728382) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843865)

the lamb will lay down with the lion and there shall be peace. And the earth will shake with unrest, and stars will fall from the sky. ick.

but why? (2, Insightful)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843867)

why would i wanna do that? i am unable to comprehend of a case scenario, where I would wanna do that. If I need to use Linux Compiler while sitting on a Windows box, I would rather use vmWare. Also vmWare has made great progress in their GSX and ESX, to make all this very easy.

Re:but why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8844000)

3 words: "Proof of concept".

This is no stupider than booting linux on an iPod.

I wonder do they appear as networked pcs (1, Insightful)

jeoin (668566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843868)

This could be neat, and potentially allow for a speed up in cross platform development. It would be nice to hop back and forth from one OS to the next.

Article Text... (5, Informative)

relyter (696205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843869)

It's already becoming a bit slow... Looks like the Israel Defence Force may have done it again. Already famous for spawning an entire generation of software geniuses now active in the world of wireless technologies, the IDF has now apparently incubated the technical talent capable of creating a project that could change the world: the ability to run Linux on Windows 2000/XP. 21 year-old Dan Aloni, a graduate of an IDF computer unit, has developed a Linux application - called Cooperative Linux ("CoLinux" for short) - that is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows without using a commercial PC virtualization software such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any general purpose PC virtualization software. A member of the international open source community, Aloni developed CoLinux along with several Japanese programmers, collaborating over the Net. According to the Web site, they've written special core drivers for the host OS which modify the way the host OS receives notifications from the hardware - thus allowing both OSes to coexist peacefully - and run at a decent speed as well. In Israel, acclaim for a system potentially capable of allowing organizations to run Linux and Windows in parallel on the same computer or server has been immediate. Organizations would make great savings if they didn't any longer have to have separate machines for each OS, says Shahar Shemesh, a member of the Israeli open source forum. And Pini Cohen, a senior informations systems analyst at computer research company Meta Group Israel has called the development "an important stage in breaking Microsoft's monopoly." "As the trend is for Linux to take a more important role in organizations," Shemesh continues, "Aloni's development is extremely interesting. The question is how Microsoft will react and whether it will allow support for Windows systems if they have Linux systems installed on them." According to Haaretz.com that is carrying details of this story, Microsoft has so far made no comment on Aloni's development.

Re:Article Text... (Socre:5, Informative) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843941)

This is a troll... It contains several misquotes.

The IDF is famous for??? (0, Insightful)

jack_n_jill (642554) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843981)

The IDF is famous for torture, assassination and opression. This is just some Israeli PR to deflect everyone from the reality of what the IDF does.

What about Cygwin? (-1, Redundant)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843880)

The article is rather short on details, but exactly how is this different than what Cygwin has been doing for a number of years?

Re:What about Cygwin? (4, Informative)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843965)

The article is rather short on details, but exactly how is this different than what Cygwin has been doing for a number of years?

There are three approaches to this problem (aside from virtual machines, like VMWare, or emulation).

The Cygwin approach is to provide basically a windows library that implements the Linux API. You can then recompile Linux programs using that library to run on Windows.

The CoLinux approach is to basically run the Linux kernel as a process on Windows, and then you can run Linux binaries under Windows. Think of it as conceptually like User Mode Linux, but running on Windows instead of Linux.

The third approach is what my employer is doing, in a product that we have in beta right now, which I won't name since I'm not sure if we have announced this yet. It's kind of in between Cygwin and CoLinux--it provides an implementation of the Linux API on Windows, so you can run Linux binaries, but it has no Linux code in it. Basically the same way WINE lets you run Win32 binaries on Linux.

If it's running on Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843885)

Won't it be built on top of all the flaws that come with it?

IBM Linux Adverts using George Lucas motif (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843896)

Well if it is the start of a whole new revolution, IBM appears to be trying to sell exactly the same line...the George Lucas Motif of the white haired boy in their Internet adverts...Quotes from Darwin over survival of the species...George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars being the key turning point in late 20th Century film history... ...So now we have Microsoft in the red corner...

in the blue corner we have Charles Darwin, George Lucas (the force), IBM, Israel, Japan....

Erm. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843897)

No. No, it won't. Move along, nothing to see here...

gay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843899)

gay / i hate niggers

Another way to break the wall? (4, Insightful)

peripatetic_bum (211859) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843900)

"As the trend is for Linux to take a more important role in organizations," Shemesh continues, "Aloni's development is extremely interesting. The question is how Microsoft will react and whether it will allow support for Windows systems if they have Linux systems installed on them."


This statement is really interesting as it suggests that linux will not takeover (if it will) one computer at a time (which it seems to be doing at the server level) but one app process at a time. Ie, that is to say, suppose one app has a certain level of importance, so people write to run in linux on windows, then slowly window apps get replaces such that windows merely servers base os, and then who knows, the people running the app decided to then get rid of the windows os, without having to do the whole thing all at once.

Of course as one previous poster said, the linux app is going to only be as stable as the windows os and who would no be surprised if there developed certain instablilties for this project.

I would like to hear your thoughts

Link to the colinux project (5, Informative)

nsushkin (222407) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843902)

Colinux Project [colinux.org] Screenshots [colinux.org]

- Dunno, seems like the original article missed the actual link.

If you ask me, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843904)

This is the biggest waste of time since Magic: The Gathering.

I don't see a single advantage over just running a standalone BSD install =] Screw you Linux, and screw you too BillyWare. Only a Linux nut would do something so pointlessly foolish. I just can't wait to need a license from MS to run Linux *rolls eyes*

Has anyone tried this on this CoLinux (3, Funny)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843907)


1)Run Windows XP.
2)Install CoLinux
3)Install Wine in CoLinux
4)Run windows applications in Wine

Well, if you have nothing else to do on a weekend.........

Bundle it... (3, Insightful)

qualico (731143) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843912)

...so users don't have a choice when they buy Dell, Compaq/HP or other brand names.

Thats how you change the world.
Worked well for Microsoft. :0>

Support? (4, Interesting)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843914)

"As the trend is for Linux to take a more important role in organizations," Shemesh continues, "Aloni's development is extremely interesting. The question is how Microsoft will react and whether it will allow support for Windows systems if they have Linux systems installed on them."

Hmm.. there's an interesting question. Can Microsoft really refuse to support your windows installation if you're running Linux (as an application, even?) Or is this guy just trolling?

WHY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843920)

why would you build a house on sand?
Actually, why would you build a house on rented sand?

But why? (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843927)

Why would one want to do this, except as a demo?
Either OS can now crash the machine, so the MTBF gets worse. You get to pay both Microsoft and Red Hat. And few people run Linux because they like the desktop applications.


This sounds like one of those "I'm l33t" toys.


The ability to run Windows apps on Linux is far more useful.

Re:But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843958)

always look on the bright side

Yawn (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843928)

Mandrake had an option to install to run within Windows *years* back. Then there's all the emulators and virtual servers, besides the likes of Knoppix.

Running from within Windows is only of use to developers - Joe AverageUser doesn't care. What's the point to run Linux from within Windows? Wow, pay money for WinOS to be able to run a free OS that you have installed without WinOS in the first place.

Severe limitation (4, Informative)

nsushkin (222407) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843935)

There are still some problems [colinux.org] to work out.
  1. No virtual graphics adapter, so no X-Windows
  2. Memory limited to about 128 or 256 MB

Re:Severe limitation (1)

No. 24601 (657888) | more than 10 years ago | (#8844007)

2. Memory limited to about 128 or 256 MB

They say it's only limited because of Windows' non-cached memory allocator, not something they imposed. Anyone care to elaborate on how/why that is?

plex86? (4, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843951)

So what happened to Plex86? As of about this time last year, they were saying they're alive and kicking, this time only trying to achieve linux-on-windows [slashdot.org] .


CoLinux [linuxkernel.net] is apparently somewhat similar to Plex86, but additionally requires admin access whereas Plex86 wasn't supposed to. Anyone know more?

linix image (1, Insightful)

chez69 (135760) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843962)

Hmmm. This whole OSS business is supposed to engender, among other things, choice.

Now, for various reasons, some geek, some pragmatic, some even business-like, I - a die-hard Windows user/programmer of over 10 years - am interested in Linux. Not to the exclusion of Windows, hoever.

It's not necessary to call us whores. Not all of us. At worst, there are the vast majority who think there is no choice, and they certainly need to be educated. But, having educated myself on the alternatives, I still choose to use Windows, and damned if I will apologize for it. If you want to convert the intelligent Windows geeks, (we're out there, lost in a sea of clue-bies) you might want to consider that we're worth a little respect.

By the way, I'm loading Mandrake on a virtual as I type this.

It's like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843968)

1. "Embrace" co-linux.

2. Extend same.

3. Repeat "Innovate" three times.

4. Profit.

VMWare/VirtualPC (1)

artlu (265391) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843979)

I just wish that the emulation programeslike VMWare/VirtualPC could 100% emulate the environments. Using Virtual PC on OS X is amazingly useful. I'd rather run windows on top of Linux if I needed to use windows, but I would need 100% capability for games and such. Maybe when we have immediate booting ability we can have both OSes loaded into memory at once??

Just some thoughts.

in reverse (5, Insightful)

TheLittleJetson (669035) | more than 10 years ago | (#8843990)

it would seem more productive to do this in reverse... that is to say, windows running under linux... not simply a compatability layer [wine] or an emulated system [vmware] -- it would be cool to see the NT kernel running as a process under linux (just as linux ran under mach in MkLinux, or OS9 runs under OS X)... it would probably be a lot faster to reboot that way... ;-)

-m

__ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8843998)

I'm taking bets! (1, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8844010)

How long before MS issues a service pack that "breaks" CoLinux?

No way... (0, Offtopic)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 10 years ago | (#8844015)

Wait a second... you adverte a commercial product and you don't insert a url into your text... What is this?! [...] Slashdot?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>