Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Convert Linux to Windows

philipbohun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 459 posts

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#121

Post by notfed »

> Thesis: We should create a distro of Linux that runs Windows binaries by default via Wine.

On Debian you're one package away:

    sudo apt install wine-binfmt
Otherwise you're still pretty close:

    echo 'none /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc binfmt_misc defaults 0 0' >> /etc/fstab
    mount -a
    echo ':DOSWin:M::MZ::/usr/bin/wine:' > /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#122

Post by pbohun »

notfed wrote: post #121

> Thesis: We should create a distro of Linux that runs Windows binaries by default via Wine. On Debian you're one package away: sudo apt install wine-binfmt Otherwise you're still pretty close: echo 'none /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc binfmt_misc defaults 0 0' >> /etc/fstab mount -a echo ':DOSWin:M::MZ::/usr/bin/wine:' > /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register

This is great! Someone else mentioned binfmt_misc. I didn't know about that.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#123

Post by DonnyV »

cyberax wrote: post #38
mappu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2005 the hot new Windows technology was .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0. You can't just dump Framework 1.1's libraries next to the binary and expect it to work either, it needs to be installed properly.

The most recent .NET Framework still keeps 1.1 assemblies for compatibility. And yep, .NET sucked and eventually got semi-abandoned.

What are you talking about??? .NET never got abandoned! If anything its hit a very high bar now. Its one of the top frameworks to build an app across platforms.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#124

Post by coderenegade »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #89
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately Flathub (the biggest Flatpak repository) doesn't allow Windows apps, despite it working on a technical level

https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/requirements says, > Windows application submissions that are using Wine or any submissions that aren't native to Linux desktop and is using some emulation or translation layer will only be accepted if they are submitted officially by upstream with the intention of maintaining it in official capacity. Although, I am curious why; they don't seem to have a general problem w…

Probably because it's implicitly pirated. No one is sharing windows freeware this way, because there's no demand for it. It'll be MS Office, Photoshop, CAD, etc. -- stuff for which there's still no good OSS alternative, and for which the barrier to entry is high.

It would take a large organization with enough connections to cut through this. You'd probably need to cut a deal so you could distribute their software, and you'd need to provide a mechanism for users to be able to make purchases. Even then, there are various licensing challenges, because you would be distributing the same install, so thousands (or millions) of "installs" would effectively have the same serial or license number.

It's nontrivial, but the basic idea is straightforward and doable. The challenge is how windows software is distributed and licensed, not anything technical.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#126

Post by barotalomey »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #92
bitmasher9 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and you can do this application specific tweaking but it’s largely less required now than it was in the past.

Less required in general or by the user? I sort of had it in my head that part of what Proton did was to just bundle all of those tweaks so you didn't have to think about it, but I haven't actually looked under the hood.

Correct. Parent is misinformed.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#127

Post by caspper69 »

I have points to burn, so I'll post, because I know this will scratch some folks the wrong way- apologies in advance.

I use Windows. In fact, I like Windows. I know lots of (ok, more than 5) greybeards who feel exactly the same way. I don't want Linux to be Windows, but I also don't want Linux on my personal desktop either.

I have a Mac Mini M1 on my desk, and I use that for the things it's good for, mainly videoconferencing. It's also my secondary Adobe Creative Suite machine.

On my Win11 desktop, I have WSL2 with Ubuntu 24.04 for the things it is good for- currently that's Python, SageMath, CUDA, and ffmpeg. For my Unix fix, I use Git Bash (MSYS2) for my "common, everyday Unix-isms" on Windows.

I also use PowerShell and Windows Scripting on my box when I need to.

Why? Well, firstly, it's easy and I've got stuff to do. Secondly, cost is not really an issue- I bought my Windows Pro license back with Win7, and it was about $180. That was maybe 15 years ago. They have graciously upgraded me at every step- Win7 -> Win10 -> Win11, all at no cost. Even if I had had to buy it, my Taco Bell tab is higher in any given month than a Windows license (love that inflation).

Why else? Everything works. I get no annoying popups, and I really no longer sweat garbage living on my drive, because that ship has sailed; wanna waste 50GB? Sure, go ahead.

But the most important reason? My hardware is supported. My monitors look great; printers, scanners, mice and USB drives & keys all work. In fact, >90% of the time, everything just works. Further, I can share effortlessly with my Mac, all my Linux servers speak SMB (CIFS), Wireshark works, and my programs are all supported including most open source software. And I do run apps that are 20+ years old from time to time.

Truth be told, I have tried the dance of daily driving Linux, and it's a laundry list of explanations to others why my stuff is different or deficient in some way. The kicker is that my clients don't care about purity or coolness factors.

Linux has its place. But please don't put in on my main machine, and please don't give it to my family members. They're only being nice by living with a sub-par desktop experience. It will always take a herculean effort to stay on par with Windows or MacOS, and no one really wants to put their money where their mouth is.

Please don't misunderstand. I admire and respect authors of open source software, and my servers thank them. But being a contrarian and dogfooding what KDE and GNOME put out, fighting with Nvidia and AMD, dealing with constant driver interface changes, and not having proper commercial software support is not my idea of fun. It was 30 years ago. Today? I'd rather hang with my daughter or write some code.

These distros have had 35 years. I don't know what else to say.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#128

Post by Dwedit »

lucasoshiro wrote: post #29

> Imagine we made a new Linux distro. This distro would provide a desktop environment that looks close enough to Windows that a Windows user could use it without training. You could install and run Windows applications exactly as you do on Windows; no extra work needed. Why not use ReactOS?

ReactOS is too buggy to be used as a daily driver for your operating system, but it's awesome as Windows Kernel reference code. You want to know what a Kernel-mode function does? Ether read the documentation, or look at what ReactOS does. (Yes, leaked Windows code exists too, and it's even on freakin Microsoft-owned-Github of all places, but you can't legally look at that stuff!)

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#129

Post by dartharva »

pdonis wrote: post #68

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Windows (and Mac, for that matter). Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source. In either case, all of the issues about binary distribution being "unstable" are invisible to users. Which is the point. People who wa…

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of software distribution.

Centralized package management is a curse. Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#130

Post by pdonis »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #110
pdonis wrote: post #68

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Windows (and Mac, for that matter). Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source. In either case, all of the issues about binary distribution being "unstable" are invisible to users. Which is the point. People who wa…

There are a lot of reasons to avoid Windows outside of package/software management. Linux has appimage, it's already capable of running "loose" native executables like Windows does. Flatpak, Snap and Docker all break the "distro repository or compile from source" model. The primary method of playing video games is installing Steam and running Windows software inside a container. This purist vision you have of Linux d…

> This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist.

It does on my computer, and I suspect on a lot of Linux users' computers.

Post reply on HN