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.
I would like to see windows ported to Linux. True we have wine, but then...
I would expect that port to not be free as per GNU licensing, but one can hope
Statement doesn't make any sense.
Port Windows to Linux and that would pollute the Linux ecosystem with all the bad and nasty features of Windows. Still, if you know anything about Wine that's the closest you can get to porting WIndows to Linux.
On closer scrutiny of Windows one realises what a horrible system and philosophy it really is. Microsoft may do some good research in terms of HCI but that's where the good stuff ends with that company. Windows on the whole is such a terrible product that I don't think we should encourage porting Windows apps to Linux either. Linux users can make their own apps or find alternatives. Besides Linux does hold its own.
I would like to see windows ported to Linux. True we have wine, but then...
I would expect that port to not be free as per GNU licensing, but one can hope
What exactly do you mean by this? Is it just a joke, do you want to run windows while Linux is running, or do you mean you want to be able to run all windows programs inside of Linux?
Disregarding the 1st idea, there's already stuff that can do (at least some of it) for you:
To run Windows while Linux is running: Get a VM hypervisor (probably a Type 2), then install Windows inside that. Many to choose from, the most user friendly & common being Oracle's VirtualBox and VMWare's Player (both free, VMWare's got some paid for versions also like their Workstation)
To run Windows programs inside of Linux: WINE is probably what you're after. Though it only works on some programs for Windows. The issue is that much of Windows is "secret", and even more are just "bugs" or "accidents". So if a program actually makes use of one of these "secrets" / "bugs" / "accidents" chances that Wine can simulate the same non-standard stuff is pretty small.
But I agree with linuxbawks: Your first attempt should be to get an alternative Linux-native program instead of trying to force something which brings all of Windows' problems with it and then probably doesn't work too well. Unfortunately that doesn't sort out all possibilities though, but for me 95% of the time I can get an equal or better alternative native to Linux, for 4% I can run it in Wine, and for that last 1% I run inside a Windows VM.
I would like to see windows ported to Linux. True we have wine, but then...
I would expect that port to not be free as per GNU licensing, but one can hope
====================
Here I go again. Linux and Window$ philosophies are almost a perfect opposite of each other. Linux is built with the attitude that you need to be able to do whatever your machine can do. No restrictions. Window$ is built with the attitude you can do whatever Window$ decides. And nothing more. In its original design it was to be used by persons NOT technically competent. ie... The front desk, the Secretary, the File Clerks and all those typing and re-typing whatever. The graphics coupled into the letter maker added glitz and soon caught the attention of the more technical types. The inherent ability of the computer to have paper of any size the machine had memory for brought in the Ad people. This pointed to the need for other disciplines. But Window$ was going to dictate what you were allowed to do on your machine. Something like "Don't want you to hurt yourself". The thing was - that stupid BLUE SCREEN hurt more than loosing a few hours work. Mostly because it caused the loss.
I have to agree with others in this thread - don't port, re-create the good stuff on Linux and be way - way - way ahead. A good example is GIMP. It ships with Linux, is free, and it works and I have found nothing on MicroSoft Window$, as shipped, that comes anywhere close to THE GIMP's capability. If Linux had a decent AutoCAD type CAD, CAD production would soar. Parametric drafting is OK if you have a few years to get the parts onboard and 4-5 times the time it takes to actually draw it from scratch. The Linux original could eliminate AutoCAD's badly formed solid viewing code as a start.
LinuxUser42 - Thanks for the link. I suspected much of that and am happy I was right. Especially the "...built on..." part.
PaulSuckow - ArcGIS needs pretty much a complete re-write. As of release 9 it still had no truly viable data collection section. ALL manuals shipped with it talked about using existing data but not data collection itself. And many of the editing tools are doing the wrong thing when "correcting". Section Lines HOLD over others. They cannot be moved, bent or curved to connect with lessor status line work. And that is just for openers.
..You might inquire within:
Water Resources, Calif., Land Use Section and see if anyone left can describe the data collection process. I retired in '09.
irneb - I have had bad luck with VM stuff. After reading your post here, I'll try again.
kuser - Amen Brother.
The simple lack of drivers is the biggest drawback to Linux. It seems to be industry deliberate. It also hinders WINE.
That article goes to prove that the media does not know what it's reporting. People seem to have a hard time understanding what Linux is and what Windows is.
Windows promotes bad habits. Who said a computer was meant to be easy to use?
A computer should be "controlled" which takes work. Which Linux allows.
If people want CAD it can be done in say Python. The curve may be very steep but if you want it on a plate there is always Windows and nor would I put much faith in the final product either if the author can't/won't do it from first principles.
RE Drivers write your or port the logic from Windows drivers from the manufacturer. As if the Windows driver implementations are going to be a model example.
irneb - I have had bad luck with VM stuff. After reading your post here, I'll try again.
VMs have their limitations. The 2 that is most prevalent is resource requirements and graphics performance. E.g. if your computer only has 8GB of RAM and you run a Win8 VM, you're going to use 4GB (at least) just for Windows if you set the VM to be the minimum recommended. That means there's also only 4GB left for Linux and whatever other programs you might be running.
Graphics-wise I've had bad experiences with VMs for quite some time. Though since around the beginning of last year I've found VMWare's hypervisors to be adequate to very good on this. E.g. our production office (Building Architecture) is now running huge Revit projects (files around 400MB to 1GB, RAM use from 3GB to 14GB) through VMWare's Horizonview VM Server - one machine with around 128GB RAM, 2x 8 core Xeons, a nVidia K2 Grid Graphics card, running 8 concurrent users (i.e. each user having 2 hyperthreaded cores, 16GB RAM and a 200GB share of a SSD raid). We've found both CPU and Graphics performance to be on par or better than our bare-metal workstations (16GB, i7, Geforce) - that does make up a saving on the hardware, though VMWare's licensing on this server is a bit confusing to say the least (apparently even to them). Though that's a Type 1 hypervisor - i.e. it's installed direct on the hardware without a host OS.
For Type 2 (i.e. on top of a host) I've even attempted VMWare's Player running on top of my Kubuntu box at home (similar hardware to our workstations) and found that running a W7 VM under Linux gives close to the same performance as running the W7 on the same machine in bare metal (i.e. dual booted). Oracle's VirtualBox (OTOH) is a pig wallowing in the brown stuff if you compare anything to do with graphics - it simply doesn't do graphics beyond the odd Word document (expect worse performance than the i7's built-in Intel graphics).
As for CAD, it depends what you "really" use in AutoCAD. Of all the users I've seen since my first touch of it in the late 80s, very few actually use it to its full capabilities. And for that reason I'd say that 99% of CAD users would find something like BricsCAD to be a 1:1 copy of AutoCAD, at least functionality wise. It's those specials where BC is no AC - e.g. Dynamic Blocks, Parametric Constraints, Fields, etc. Not to mention BC doesn't have a "Ribbon", it's got the old "Classic" UI as AC 2008 had - good or bad, that's more of a personal choice (personally I'm a keyboard junkie so couldn't care one way or the other). Note though BC is actually 32bit, so running it in a 64bit Linux might be a bit problematic - from my experience in Ubuntu 64 it works out the box, but in Fedora I haven't been able to get it running (my main reason for choosing Ubuntu over Fedora), so for other distro's similar inconsistencies may well be prevalent.
Agreed about drivers, that's been a headache a few times. Mostly stuff like external WiFi dongles, but I've had some bad experiences with Radeon cards too. This has made me look very carefully at hardware and if the stuff has decent Linux drivers available before buying anything new. Had to tell more than a few salesmen to "get that junk out my face"!
That article goes to prove that the media does not know what it's reporting. People seem to have a hard time understanding what Linux is and what Windows is.
Windows promotes bad habits. Who said a computer was meant to be easy to use?
A computer should be "controlled" which takes work. Which Linux allows.
If people want CAD it can be done in say Python. The curve may be very steep but if you want it on a plate there is always Windows and nor would I put much faith in the final product either if the author can't/won't do it from first principles.
RE Drivers write your or port the logic from Windows drivers from the manufacturer. As if the Windows driver implementations are going to be a model example.
Isn't this a bit like going back to the 1920's 1930's and saying if you want a television build your own. My personal view is that a computer should indeed be easy to use/operate. Security should not need to be compromised just because the system is easy to get one's head around. I've been using Linux now since about 1997 and started off with Unix in 96. This was of course still early days for the likes of Microsoft Windows so I didn't have an easy OS to fall back on or to compare Linux to. Yes, back then Linux was more difficult for the average member of the public to use but those of us who persevered learned how. Some very public spirited Linux gurus started to create distro's that were 'easy' to use and that's how it should be. We still have the more difficult distro's around and that's also good because it gives novices who have had a taste of Linux and like it something to aspire to. The more people we can get to try out Linux the better because some of those new users will be able to bring new innovations for us all. Linux really is not about wearing a hair shirt anymore
Indeed and there's *no reason* to promote difficulty for its own sake. The question is one of controlability of the system which is something that's far removed from a Windows system. A system might be easy or difficult to operate but no one said that a fairly complex machine such as a Personal Computer was easy to operate. In fact a good Linux implementation is simpler to operate than a typical Windows machine.
Isn't this a bit like going back to the 1920's 1930's and saying if you want a television build your own. My personal view is that a computer should indeed be easy to use/operate.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxbawks
If people want CAD it can be done in say Python. The curve may be very steep but if you want it on a plate there is always Windows and nor would I put much faith in the final product either if the author can't/won't do it from first principles.
I think you might be going a slight bit over the top here: CAD = Computer Aided Drafting/Drawing. Python is a text-based programming language. The last CAD (I know of) where it required the operators to input data similar to the Logo programming language went out of fashion in the 70s. And I'm not too sure that Python's a good choice to start making your CAD program (not as the only language you're going to use) - CAD (especially 3d) is extremely CPU intensive, and Python's not "known" for making very efficient programs as it's usually interpreted / VM based (think Java).
Anyhow, always starting from scratch isn't a good idea. It basically means millions (or even billions) of man-hours is wasted, since you're disregarding any work done for the past 3 or 4 decades. And a CAD system is orders of magnitude more complicated than a word processor. A single programmer would spend more than a lifetime just typing the code, never mind any sort of research and design on "basic principles". That's why most CADs are simply based on older versions, tweaked and altered where necessary, usually written in C (or in ACad's case C++). E.g. the BricsCAD I referred to earlier is based on IntelliCAD which itself is a "fork" (more like a clone) of the old (pre-Windows early 90s) version of AutoCAD which has since evolved in parallel to ACad. So it wouldn't make a lot of sense to just disregard it and start from scratch. There are a few CADs which have tried to go that route, but they tend to be so alien (at best) to the intended user base (or worse inferior due to only half-implementations) that they fizzle out in a year or so due to momentum-loss.
Even if you look at something like LibreCAD ... you notice it's just a port of QCAD ... which is an extremely feature-poor 2D-only CAD. Think of it as comparing Notepad (QCAD) to something like Light Table / Sublime (ACad/IntelliCAD).
Python is just the top level language interface which can be adapted to CAD applications. Python is suitable as a DIY tool for pretty much anything. It's a mistaken argument to use another program to do CAD. That's the MS philosophy of sandboxing apps to a restricted feature set.
And no it isn't like going back to the 1920s. Why then are people interested in Linux at all. Get a dedicated, single function device which does only one thing and be happy.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.