"The Linux Gazette...making Linux just a little more fun!"

MS Applications Support For Linux

From Marty Bluestein on Fri, 25 Dec 1998

Is there a mechanism that enables MS apps to run under Linux? Is anyone working on an autoloader for Linux?

There are a few projects. The most prominent is WINE (http://www.winehq.com). The goal of WINE is a complete re-implementation of the Windows API's to achieve full binary compatibility under any x86 Unix with X Windows (Linux is the predominant platform but any other modern x86 Unix should be a reasonable platform for WINE).

Another is Bochs (which has recently moved it's web pages to http://www.bochs.com). Bochs is a package which emulates an x86 CPU and PC chipset (similar to Connectix' "Virtual PC"). It runs on any platform that can compile its C sources. I've heard that it works reasonably well but is to slow for production use (for running Win 95 or 98 on a PC). Considering that you're using a PC to emulate a full PC CPU and chipset this is not a surprising limitation.

For older MS Windows applications (3.1 and earlier) you might try WABI --- a commercial Windows Applications Binary Interface which is available for Linux from Caldera (http://www.caldera.com). This is not be updated and is unlikely to ever support Windows '95 or later applications.

For DOS (non-Windows) you can run a copy of MS-DOS, DR-DOS FreeDOS or just about any other "real mode" x86 OS under the Linux 'dosemu'. (Just search for it in Yahoo! using "+linux +dosemu").

[ Its home page is hosted by SuSE ... http://www.suse.com/dosemu/ ... I use it to run dBase stuff and it works pretty well at this point. -- Heather ]

The DOS support is pretty good these days, though I don't use any MS-DOS applications any more so I don't have much first hand experience with it. The WABI support was pretty fast (it felt faster running typical Windows 3.x programs under Linux than it did under native MS-DOS on similar hardware --- probably do to Linux more efficient filesystem and memory management).

When thinking about the limitations of Linux support Win '9x and NT applications support (Win 32S) it is helpful to keep in mind that these limitations are almost certainly a key design goal at Microsoft. Although Linux was not on thier "radar" during the design of Windows '95 and NT --- OS/2 certainly was.

Enmeshing the interfaces at various levels to make applications difficult or impossible to support under competing operating systems is one of the key strategies that Microsoft employs. The current DoJ case against them is only a tip of the backlash that consumers are now directing to this monopoly. The fact that Linux installation tripled in the last year --- and that many organizations are now considering Linux for their desktop applications platform is ample evidence of that.

* (personally I think it's still a bit premature to be touting Linux as typical workers desktop system --- though the introduction of Corel's WordPerfect for Linux, and the release of an updated Wingz Professional for the platform do certainly bode well for the coming year. I've heard that Applixware 4.4.1 is also greatly improved and the next version of StarOffice 5.x should stabilize and mature that suite. Meanwhile GNOME, KDE, LyX, and GNUStep are plodding along towards "prime time" availability).

So that fact that there is only limited support for MS apps under Linux is a testimony to the skills of Microsoft's programmers. We can surmise that preventing these applications from running on non-Microsoft operating systems was given higher priority than robustness, security, stability, integrity, or performance.

Probably the only features that were given priority over "trap the user" were those that would enable magazine writers, and corporate purchasing agents to "review" the products and feel that they had evaluated them with about 15 minutes to an hour of actual work time exposure. This forces the application programmer to put all sorts of "features" onto menus, button bars, toolbars, icon ribbons, and otherwise clutter the screens and windows. This is an endemic problem in commercial software --- it's written to get reviews and make sales, not to satisfy long term users.

Of course an alternative to direct MS Applications support is support for their document formats. However this is another of those key "customer trapping" opportunities. They do everything short of strong (non-exportable) encryption to lock your data into .DOC, .XLS, and .PPT formats. The latest Linux applications suites and word processors are making some headway in this --- and I can often extract contents from Word '97 files without too much fuss. Earlier versions of Word are pretty well supported at this point.

You can bet that the next version of Office will egregiously break format compatability. MS can't allow its customers any freedom of choice or portability of documents to "other" platforms. That's much too dangerous to their upgrade revenue scheme.

I've talked about MS Windows support and the evils of proprietary document formats before. I personally think that the only rational remedy for Microsoft's monopolistic practices would be for the DoJ to impose a rule that MS produce freely available (open source) "reference implementations" of standards C source code to peform a reasonable suite of conversions and manipulations on all "documents" produces by their applications (including .EXE and .DLL "documents" produced by their programming "applications"). Under this plan any upgrade to any MS product that failed compatibility test suites with there freely available reference implementation (converters, tools and filters) would result in an immediate injunction on distribution until the reference implementation as updated and vetted as compatible.

(Note that I didn't say that MS has to release any of the sources to any of their products. Only that they must release some reference implementation that is compatible with the file formats, and freely usable in competing products --- free and commercial. Their contention is that their products enjoy superior market share as a result of superior interface and integration with one another --- this would give them a unique opportunity to prove that).

I have no idea what you mean by an "autoloader for Linux."

Thanks.
Marty Bluestein

Automount/autoloader

From Marty Bluestein on Fri, 25 Dec 1998

OK. Guess I should have fully read your message before I responded. By the term "autoloader" I mean a self installing function - you stick in the CD and Linux (or some other OS) sets itself up. I wasn't aware that MS was already loading their user's work (.DOC,. XLS, etc.) with gotchas. I wonder if the DoJ is aware of and pursuing this?

Marty

There are several packages that will automatically mount CD's (and floppies, NFS directories etc) for Linux. This is referred to generically (under Unix) as "volume management" or "automounting" (the latter term is more often used with regards to network file systems while the former is exclusively used for local media).

Under Solaris there is a daemon called 'vold' that manages CD's.

Under Linux you can use the 'amd' (automount daemon) or an old program called "Supermount" (Stephen Tweedie, if I recall correctly). Under newer Linux kernels you can look for a module called "autofs".

I haven't played with these much so I can't give real advice on using them. However, you now have some key words to search on. If you get one of them working in a way that seems like it would meet a typical requirements scenario --- write it up as a mini-HOWTO and solicit people to contribute sample configurations and descripts for other common usage scenarios (or at least write up an "unmaintained" mini-HOWTO and encourage the readers to adopt and maintain it.

More on: MS Apps Support

From Marty Bluestein on Fri, 25 Dec 1998

Although my ire against Gates, et al would like to see a good platform running his apps that will probably be a moving target. Better, I think, to develop a good set of apps that can work on the docs that MS apps produce. MSs response would have to be to encumber a user's work with junk to make it incompatible with any other apps. The result of that could very well be disaster for MS. Could you imagine having your work suddenly become incomprehensible because of the cute little things your app put in it?

Marty

I don't have to imagine this scenario. I've seen it happen many times.

MS Applications Support For Linux

From Marty Bluestein on Fri, 25 Dec 1998

You are right on. My appreciation of MS coincides with yours. I wish I had the time and the money to pursue that emulation of 95 and NT. Even better would be a good, competitive set of apps. Corel's latest release for Linux may indicate some movement in that direction. TNX for your response. Happy Xmas.
Marty Bluestein

More on: MS Apps Support

From Marty Bluestein on Sat, 26 Dec 1998

I've just installed Redhat. It is "auto loading". I now have a problem which Redhat and I must resolve. I'll write it up and post it when it's corrected. To whit.. WIN95 now crawls along as if it had a bigger bag of sand on it's back. Re MS: I'd rather see MS broken up into two separate companies. One doing APPS and the other doing OS. TNX for responses. HAPPY XMAS, MERRY CHANUKAH, SWINGING KWANZA and JOYFUL RAMADAN.

I can't help with the Win '95 problem. It's probably confused about WINS (Windows Naming System) or some other networking issue.

Re: Breaking up MS. Historically this has done NO GOOD with other monopolies. Go read a decent historical account and business analysis on JP Morgan (and wash that down with some Noam Chomsky). I'd recommend a book for you --- but I'd have to refer to my father to find one. My knowlege is definitely second-hand on this --- but I've discussed it with a couple people whose background in the fields of finance and history I respect.

Breaking them up is a fundamentally flawed approach. The controlling interests -- the OWNERS will still be the same. The resulting companies would clearly have mutual interests, complementary product lines, and interlocking boards of directors.

Unfortunately this approach would "appease" the masses and actually work in Bill G's favor (as it did with JP Morgan). It will allow the DoJ to appear competent and be touted as a "tough on (corporate) crime" victory. So, it's the most likely outcome.

It's also just about the worst way to deal with the problem. (It's even worse than sitting back and doing nothing) since it sets another bad precedent.

Copyright © 1999, James T. Dennis
Published in The Linux Gazette Issue 36 January 1999

						a	b	c	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	9	10	11	12
						15	16	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28
						29	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	44
45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	60	61	62	63	64	65	66
67	69	72	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	84	85	86	87	91	94	95	96	97	98