| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Introducing "Cooperative Linux" - Linux for Windows, No Less | |
|
||
| Time: 14:36 EST/19:36 GMT | News Source: Linux World | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
A month ago, a trial version of a little-known Linux application called "CoLinux" was released that is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. It's the work of a 21 year-old Israeli computer science student and some Japanese open source programmers; in Israel, analysts are already saying it could help transform the software world. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:26:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1989 (69.11.240.35) at 4/12/2004 4:26:54 PM |
| Except CoLinux should work on XP Home... |
| #2 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/12/2004 6:26:04 PM |
| And it actually runs the Linux kernel simultaneously with Windows rather than a pseudo-Unix on top of the Windows kernel. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/12/2004 7:53:25 PM |
|
Every time you attempt to divert the subject away from the actually topic at hand to discuss Linux security or iPod availability, you look like a retard, Parkker.
"Sounds more versatile to me." To you. But it's not. |
| #4 By 21912 (24.205.202.246) at 4/13/2004 3:52:56 AM |
|
I think you may be greatly overestimating the scope of Windows Services for UNIX, Parkker. Here's what I saw on Microsoft's FAQ:
Q. What is Windows Services for UNIX? A. Windows Services for UNIX provides a full range of supported and fully integrated, cross-platform network services for blending Windows and UNIX networks. Compare that to the description for Cooperative Linux: "...it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows without using a commercial PC virtualization software such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any general purpose PC virtualization software." In light of what appears to be a substantial difference between the two products, sodajerk's characterization of your attempt to divert the subject away from the actual topic at hand is not without foundation. The subject, once again, is the ability to cooperatively and simultaneously run Windows and Linux programs on the same physical machine. I think it's a damn good idea, and one that Windows Services for Unix doesn't seem to address beyond network access and management. Perhaps one day it will go further, but until then, it's a little less versatile than you seem to think. At present, the far better Microsoft solution is Virtual PC 2004 (and the soon-to-be-released Virtual Server). |
| #5 By 1989 (69.11.240.35) at 4/13/2004 8:02:19 AM |
|
Parkker, how do you call the linux kernel bloated when you don't even know which one a CoLinux user is going to use??? They could use the 2.0 kernel which is far from being bloated. It is used in the smallest of devices. Even the 2.4 kernel is used in some routers. Plus, have you ever heard of Gentoo??? You can customize the kernel to include whatever you want (not that you can't compile the kernel on any distro). How is that bloated???
But anyways, SFU is more like Cygwin and they have been compared. CoLinux actually allows you to run a linux distro like Gentoo with the advantage of running natively similar to SFU. Whereas SFU is just running the *nix software. |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.67) at 4/13/2004 8:43:42 AM |
|
"There are tons of security holes in Linux, as well as backdoors installed by agents of foreign governments."
I hope you dont expect anyone to take your comments seriously Parkker. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/13/2004 1:06:18 PM |
|
"You mean pointing out that..."
No, I mean after I corrected you, you began talking about bloat, insecurity, and backdoors. All I was talking about was functionality, not railing against something I'm profoundly and distrubingly afraid of for no coherent reason like you do all the time. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/13/2004 1:47:11 PM |
|
CoLinux has existed for 3 months. SFU goes back to the Interix days.
"What can't you do with Windows Services For Unix?" I don't know because a "features" chart on a Windows' site doesn't tell me anything. I do know that Microsoft's POSIX support SUCKS though. |
| #9 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/13/2004 4:24:34 PM |
|
Again, I am aware of MS's marketing speak. (Did I ever say they don't support POSIX? No, I said their supports SUCKS!) Have you ever implemented it? I have... We have attempted to use SFU to simply provide POSIX compatibility with our NIX servers... It sucks... It has created a mess.
You have never used SFU, have you? |
| #10 By 1989 (69.11.240.35) at 4/13/2004 4:56:24 PM |
|
#12, from the looks of it, you only read the beginning of each person's sentence. If the 2.4 kernel is sooo bloated, how do they use it in a router with only 16MB on RAM??? Plus, my comment about being to compile options out to make the kernel smaller didn't get read either. Try putting the XP kernel on a single floppy...
"It doesn't work properly yet. Typical OSS unfinished piece of crap." Nice comment... Have you ever looked through Sourceforge??? I guess Apache, MySQL, PHP, Linux, etc. are all unfinished pieces of crap?????? Just to mention a few big ones... But we are getting away from the point that coLinux is not a replacement SFU. It is more along the lines of a replacement for vmware and virtual pc. This post was edited by Lord British on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 at 16:57. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/13/2004 5:19:04 PM |
|
Lord British - "I guess Apache, MySQL, PHP, Linux, etc. are all unfinished pieces of crap??????"
Well now that you mention it... |
| #12 By 1989 (69.11.240.35) at 4/13/2004 5:38:41 PM |
|
sodablue,
Come on, they are finished :) Actually, I use Apache2 on Windows 2000 Pro (avoids the 10 connection limit and all the known IIS hacks) and it runs great. |
| #13 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/14/2004 8:23:02 PM |
|
#22 "So, you are contradicting chris and suggesting that people should compile their own kernel to get rid of the bloat."
Really need to work on those reading and comprehension skills Parkker, honestly. My point to you was that you *don't have to* compile your own kernel, you can always up2date or apt-get etc the latest one. What you do however have is a CHOICE to recompile it yourself, where you are given complete control over what does and what does not go into it. So to translate this a little better for you, it means that "power users" (such as yourself obviously!) can compile their own kernel, optimised for their system, whilst new users can run a 1 line command or click on a button to get the latest kernel. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:26:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
