Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>]

"Ekkehard Morgenstern" <ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> writes:

> "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote:
> > Nah.  Somebody's got to switch to a Free operating system, thereby
> > becoming Free instead of Captive of one OS supplier.  As long as you
> > program specifically for Windows, you are Captive.
> 
> Oh c'mon. I still have to use Windows because the applications I use aren't
> available on GNU/Linux, plus I invested a lot into my Windows system, and
> I don't want to toss that overboard.

As I said: your investment in Windows-specific programs made you
Captive.  You are not alone in this situation.

> But I will set up a GNU/Linux box for my private projects as well, because
> I have to to create code for it (Cygwin might do as well, but it's not the
> same as a real GNU/Linux box).
> 
> Windows certainly can't be dealt with by ignoring it. It's the big mistake
> IMO of the GNU/Linux community to do that. Why is the Wine project not 
> finished yet, the Windows API is so easy to emulate! It could permit 
> running at least some of the Windows apps on GNU/Linux.

It does permit running some of the Windows apps on GNU/Linux.  Wine
has been production-worthy for a couple of years now.  A few months
ago, I was running Microsoft Visual SourceSafe on top of Wine on my
GNU/Linux box at work.  And Microsoft Office runs on top of
CodeWeaver's enhanced Wine, called CrossOver Office.  This is possible
because Wine is free for all to enhance and modify.

Now, the poor quality of Microsoft applications (especially WRT
security and viruses) makes it, ah, difficult to choose them when
you've got free alternatives.  Hence the lack of interest in running
Microsoft apps on GNU/Linux.

> But the real strength of Windows is often overlooked: It's its
> components! Windows XP alone comes with over 1.5 GB of
> components. Where's the .NET/CLR port or emulation for GNU/Linux? It
> could boost GNU/Linux server sales.

Most GNU/Linux or {Free,Net,Open}BSD distributions come with much,
much more than 1.5 Gb of libraries, and it increases by the day.  Not
only are the libraries there, you can also inspect their source code
and get in touch with their developers.  You can extend them to suit
your needs, and have your changes merged into the main line of
development.  Try that with components supplied by Microsoft.

But for people who just cannot think outside the wonderful world of
Microsoft, there is a project called Mono[1] to provide a
.NET-compliant platform on GNU/Linux.  Complete with the freedom to
modify it, of course.

[1] http://www.go-mono.com

> Where are the good, easy-to-use desktops for GNU/Linux? As long as you have
> to touch a single shell file to get your machine to run, GNU/Linux will be
> no option for the user who wants an easy-to-use system.

They are here: http://www.gnome.org, http://www.kde.org, and included
in all major distributions.  BTW, both include a component framework à
la Microsoft DCOM.

Besides, I do not want an easy-to-use system.  I want a powerful
system which I can control and modify to suit my needs.  This is
particularly important, IMHO, when developing software that depends on
gigabytes of other software.

> People don't even update their Windows with the latest Windows Update, and
> then their machines don't run properly. If the GNU/Linux community was a 
> bit more clever, they would exploit the situation and provide a mega-easy
> GNU/Linux that is attractive to the non-tech user.

But the GNU/Linux community does exploit the situation properly.  So
do the *BSD communities.

For technically savvy users, Debian, Gentoo or the *BSD's are the
ultimate distributions where updates are made available every day.
For newbies, Mandrake, SuSE, Knoppix or LindowsOS provide the ultimate
in ease of installation.  Just take your pick: you are Free.  For more
information, you should pay a visit to http://www.distrowatch.com.

And most of the distros have package management systems (apt or RPM)
that put Microsoft to shame.  And yes, they do run properly whether or
not you update them, because they are much less vulnerable to viruses
than Windows.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.