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

381–390 of 459 posts

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#381

Post by amavect »

DrFalkyn wrote: post #377
amavect wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to statically link OpenGL and Vulkan for exactly this purpose, but neither use a wire protocol (unlike X11 or Wayland). The whole "loading library" scheme feels like hazing for any beginner graphics programmer on top of the already complex graphics APIs.

I know at least for OpenGL, not all graphics cards/drivers would implement the entire featureset. So there was a reasonable justification for the dynamic linking and bringing in functions one by one.

I think that a wire protocol could support that with a query response for supported versions and functions. The decision of dynamic linking removes the overhead of serialization, but removes the option of static linking.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#382

Post by feelamee »

rendaw wrote: post #364
feelamee wrote: post #277

> I can pull down a 20 year old exe and still run it today on Windows. Try doing the same with a Linux binary that's just a year old. There's no guarantee that it will be able to run based off some update that has happened IMHO, you just compare two different things. Traditional method of installing apps on Windows is packing all dynamic dependencies with it. While on linux dynamic dependencies are shared between app…

I think it's not quite simple though. For one, I think the opengl driver situation is complex, where I hear you need userland per-hardware libraries which basically require dynamic linking. From that perspective windows binaries are the de-facto most stable way of releasing games on linux. I'm not sure about linux syscall ABI stability either, or maybe other things that live in the kernel?

> I think the opengl driver situation is complex, where I hear you need userland per-hardware libraries which basically require dynamic linking

Yes. OpenGL driver is loading dynamically, but.. Are you sure that there are any problems with OpenGL ABI stability? I have never hear about breaking changes in it

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#383

Post by doublepg23 »

duskwuff wrote: post #169
doublepg23 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting seeing Office suites from the 90s and wondering what really needed improved. Google Docs pioneering “auto saving” in the cloud is the only one I can think of.

Collaborative editing? "Track Changes" just doesn't hit the same way.

That’s a good one. Perhaps Google Docs is the pinnacle of office suites.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#385

Post by stevekemp »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #57

People always talk about this “I can run a 20 year .exe file” situation but when I tell you that I have never, in 30+ years, EVER had a need to run a 20+ year executable, it just makes me go… yeah, and? Sure I believe backwards compatibility is a nice to have feature, but I have never, nor do I think I will ever, have a need to run 20-year-old software.

I've got a terminal open on my desktop, running a copy of ZORK from 1983, which is 42 years old.

Yes there are modern ports, and newer versions, but these kind of retro games, and utilities, are used by many.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#386

Post by blueflow »

> There's also no guarantee that a binary produced today on Linux will even work on the various distributions of Linux today due to the same installed library version problem.

On Linux, you are supposed to share the source code, not the binaries. FOSS source is easier to fix than a binary blob. This is why the FSF exists.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#387

Post by bobsmooth »

blueflow wrote: post #386

> There's also no guarantee that a binary produced today on Linux will even work on the various distributions of Linux today due to the same installed library version problem. On Linux, you are supposed to share the source code, not the binaries. FOSS source is easier to fix than a binary blob. This is why the FSF exists.

99% of Windows users don't even know what compiling is, nevermind compiling from source themselves.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#388

Post by Const-me »

sleepycatgirl wrote: post #196
Const-me wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shipping all dependencies (e.g. shipping a container image) gives perfect binary compatibility on Linux That doesn’t work for GUI programs which use a hardware 3D GPU. Linux doesn’t have a universally available GPU API: some systems have GL, some have GLES, some have Vulkan, all 3 come in multiple versions of limited compatibility, and optional features many of them are vendor specific. In contrast, it’s impossible…

without vulkan-capable gpu you still get 3D acceleration via wined3d. Unless you meant, without any gpu at all :s

Good point. I forgot that in addition to DXVK they also have WineD3D.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#389

Post by iamnotarobotman »

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?

Is that even stable to use yet? Last time I used ReactOS, it was very unstable to use as a daily driver.

Some of the basic apps like Jetbrains it could barely run it. At best it was crashing frequently for me.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#390

Post by bobsmooth »

hnlmorg wrote: post #271

This problem is related to the fact that Linux distos typically dynamically link executables and don’t retain older versions of those libraries vs Windows which does. It’s on of the many reasons Windows base install is so much heavier than a typical Linux base install. The reason Windows retains older versions of executables while Linux doesn’t is because Windows doesn’t have a package manager like Linux distros. Ok,…

>It’s on of the many reasons Windows base install is so much heavier than a typical Linux base install.

Is that a bad thing if it means a seamless experience for users? Storage is cheap.

Post reply on HN