What programs would you like to see ported to Linux?
Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Microsoft Office,
I prefer using LibreOffice and MS Office kind of works in wine but it is still wine and not Linux native.
Some features don't work at all through wine.
+ official support would be great
There are other mentionings but I guess it are mere myths rather than 'kind of' facts.
I understand MS isn't looking into letting their Office users choose their OS.
The reason why they support MS Office on OS X in the first place is probably just the fact that it's user base has been growing so fast the last years that they otherwise would lose a lot of customers which wouldn't be the case with Linux (so they think!).
Still a lot of governments, agencies, the NASA, enterprise users, ... use Linux based operating systems,
so come on MS, go port MS Office to Linux and maybe one day you have one more customer who has been withdrawn from you since a longer while (me).
Now that I'm ranting,
why doesn't MS start making a UNIX or Linux (unix-like) operating system?
Why don't they make Windows 9 based on the Linux kernel rather then the uhum... NT-kernel.
Windows is the only modern non-UNIX-(like) operating system still around.
Linux distributions are UNIX-like, OS X runs the Bach kernel which is UNIX, BSD is a UNIX OS, ...
These are the most widely used and on desktop it is even just: Windows, OS X, Linux.
Port all file systems, formats, ... to a Linux environment, make everything graphical and add a clear terminal application rather then their (sorry, my opinion) sucky command prompt. The command prompt can be a little fun when you only use Windows occasionally but a bash CLI for example is far superior and more usable.
Users won't notice a difference because they usually are only used to a graphical environment.
It also disses the so called 'long' updates Mac users are known to laugh about when they compare their updating system to Windows PC's users.
(I remember the +/- 500 updates I didn't have an idea about what they where for when trying to shutdown my computer, thank Linus Torvalds because he came up with a GNU inspired OS so I can enjoy Mac users their pleasure in a free + open-source way.)
Of course this is much harder than it is to tell but... they are Microsoft, Bill Gates is known to be one rich, intelligent, expanding guy?!
Of course I don't like this idea on the other hand because I like the feel of safety, speed, originality by using Linux.
I only know two other people in real life that also use Linux.
But it is still a good question I think, do they (microsoft) make a lot of money by laying contacts with antivirus vendors or something?
That would be the only reason I can come up with thay they still aren't making a UNIX OS after all these years,
they did have been developing a UNIX system (Xenix) long ago but where has it gone to then?
Crazy post.
Best thing is if MS stayed away from LINUX/UNIX. That company would pollute the UNIX ecosystem.
Windows/NT is already MS's answer to a "UNIX-like" OS.
Those needing Office, there is 365, consider it a favour done to your types.
Last edited by linuxbawks; 07-26-2014 at 10:15 AM.
Yeah, maybe,
it is really fine to not really worry about antivirus software and company related matter.
Especially no Microsoft, it's good to feel free even if we're just talking about a little software.
I remember my old Acer desktop being full of this Acer crap I never used.
It just flooded that Windows Vista pc even more.
Coupon printers for sites like coupons.com. Also Sketchup (used to be a Google product and someone else took it over). Nothing else like it and it's free. Those two things are pretty much my only reason for keeping Windows around.
Crazy post.
Best thing is if MS stayed away from LINUX/UNIX. That company would pollute the UNIX ecosystem.
Windows/NT is already MS's answer to a "UNIX-like" OS.
Those needing Office, there is 365, consider it a favour done to your types.
===========================
Postings 5327 and 5328 (this one) are not all wrong. In 5327 the comment is that Linux is being made a port to Window$. I disagree on the strictness of that. Linux is mounting an interface for Window$ to use and still retaining full Linux capabilities. Including the lack of "The Blue Screen" followed by the mandatory power-off/power-on to regain machine control. Linux also mounts an interface for MSDOS (DosBox) with the same results. If Linux were "ported" to Window$ that ability disappears.
Which brings me to 5328. Yep!!! Microsoft producing software for Linux would be roughly equivalent to The Black Plague of Europe's past for Linux.
Porting ALL programs to ALL OS'es is a bad idea all it's own, without even considering the economic consequences. "Beta Testing" would never cease. More importantly; Window$ and Linux are fundamentally at odds. Window$ is not designed for generic usage. It is designed for "Point-n-Click" of a preset set of choices. Free form thought is usually not allowed. If the author of the program didn't think of something, you are out of luck. Linux is designed as a "Rubic's Cube". A set of routines that can be called by scripts and/or each other and pass bi-directionally data and notices and even receive direct from script input as if it is keyboard entries. One module can write the instructions for another based on input from self/other or even both. The whole procedure is of "free-form" in nature. "Point-n-Click" goes out of it's way to avoid direct human entry. Micro$oft's VBA, their "shell commands", takes a whole sh.it load of time and storage just to say "Hello".
If all you need is something to show you your daily schedule, a note from the office and to play self important on Facebook - use a PDA. If you are tracking the DNA sequences, trying to determine harmonic disturbances on a bridge design, put a Rover on Mars, and so forth - it would be best if you used Linux. Those science minded that used MSDOS then Window$ because that's all there was, can port to Linux. Even "dialogue" will make the routines look good. And the Open Source allows verifying the libraries. Some of the better routines out there were written by High School dropouts. But, thankfully, they posted them for others to use.
Norseman01
Last edited by Norseman01; 08-22-2014 at 06:19 PM.
While I'm in agreement with a lot you're saying, there are still some "useful" software unavailable in Linux (not those made by MS though)!
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "beta testing". In essence it never stops anywhere, be that on Windows / OSX / Linux / etc., in all walks of programs, all domains, all licensing (commercial / open source / free / whatever else). If a program has an update it's mostly because someone's found an error somewhere due to "beta testing" (or should that be called "gamma testing") - i.e. a user's mentioned a bug and this gets fixed in the update. I usually like it less when a bug is left for years or decades to fester while all sorts of marketing hype "new functionality" is added.
While I'm in agreement with a lot you're saying, there are still some "useful" software unavailable in Linux (not those made by MS though)!
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "beta testing". In essence it never stops anywhere, be that on Windows / OSX / Linux / etc., in all walks of programs, all domains, all licensing (commercial / open source / free / whatever else). If a program has an update it's mostly because someone's found an error somewhere due to "beta testing" (or should that be called "gamma testing") - i.e. a user's mentioned a bug and this gets fixed in the update. I usually like it less when a bug is left for years or decades to fester while all sorts of marketing hype "new functionality" is added.
===================
We are actually on the same page. The testing never does quit, but in writing originally for OS-#1 and then porting to OS-#2 and then to OS-#3 and so on gets to be a real rats nest on the home computer. Home as in the unit that houses the current source. A fix in one OS may or may not be needed in another. A fix in one OS may not be possible in another without changing huge amounts of code. A simple script in Linux can be almost impossible in Micro$oft. A few years ago I tried to get something like 8-10 lines of bash ported to Micro$oft. After a few hundred lines of VB I abandoned the effort. Point and Click and Free Form really don't pair up very well.
Bottom line remains with the fact that some programs require a complete re-write to get aboard a different OS. I would note that so far I find individual programmer programs/libraries more portable than Corporate efforts. Coupled with better communication between creator and user the end result is better and completes in less time. (...assuming no whiners involved...).
"...wait years..." Yes, Access to the source code can be a real life saver. I have used original source and ported from MSDOS style BASIC and FORTRAN to C and fixed minor things along the way. More program doing the work and less human uselessly redundant typing. Corporate is less interested in producing a solid product than it is in convincing you to buy a "New and ..." Well, I like your term for it. Another wall is converting 64bit math programs to 32bit. Lots of 32s, 64s are out but headcount wise the little ones win. Those get to be fun. As do Big-endian vs Little-endian. It is the little things that wreck the grand, oh so majestic, fantastic programs. And the testing time gets longer and longer.
Re-read my first sentence of my first paragraph above. And consider: Sometimes it is better to get together with friends and simply start with a clean slate rather than port. I find Linux et al to be a good friend.
Would like to see a layered based video editor, like Vegas or Premier. And something like After Effects. But lightworks for linux is capable albeit not a program using layers. Blender does somethings akin to After Effects.
I didn't notice a forum or thread about video. It seems to be a weak point, video editing (that is) or has that changed?? Or is it a 'dead' topic??
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
pc even more.
Linux also mounts an interface for MSDOS (DosBox) with the same results. If Linux were "ported" to Window$ that ability disappears.
