4 ms·

We might end up in a world, where all the command line applications are Unix/Linux (and run on Windows via WSL) and the GUI applications are Win32 (and run on L

We might end up in a world, where all the command line applications are Unix/Linux (and run on Windows via WSL) and the GUI applications are Win32 (and run on Linux via Wine) This would be playing to their strengths. There is a much nicer command line/shell ecosystem in Linux and a much nicer GUI ecosystem in Windows.

pjmlp 5y ago
UNIX you mean. That is why so few bother to support Linux OEMs, having some kind of POSIX support is enough for the large majority. However I still disagree, structured shell with REPL like capabilities like PowerShell are so much better and so much closer to the Xerox PARC experience.
- laumars 5y ago
  > UNIX you mean. Not the GP but generally speaking it’s not a great reach to say that Linux is more widely supported than POSIX. GNU-only flags are often used in shell scripts and you’ll often find binaries are packaged as a snap or Docker container thud anyone running a non-Linux system is left to compile that project themselves. Even WINE itself doesn’t officially support all POSIX-compatible UNIXs.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Yep. WINE is a second-class citizen on any platform that isn't Linux (as is most POSIX-like software these days), and requires special patches just to run on MacOS (and even paying for Crossover won't give you 32-bit binary support on Mac). For better and worse, the POSIX spec is dead. Besides a few niche use-cases where compatibility with archaic software is necessary, Linux is the new standard for this stuff.
    - q-big 5y ago
      > Linux is the new standard for this stuff. Linux is not a standard, because in opposite to, say, POSIX, it is not standardized, but is an everchanging implementation.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        I don't mean it in a literal sense, though I get where you're coming from. Think of it this way: your server software's stability is more or less defined by how well it conforms to Linux compatibility. Even software that is designed with perfect POSIX compliance won't run reliably on the majority of servers. Linux, despite not being a standard, has become a spec for server software. The kicker is that nobody can really undermine them unless you can create a true alternative with a more compelling license than GPL. If our industry wants to return to a truly standardized status-quo, we need to put aside our differences and collaborate on a next-gen spec that works. Considering that we barely did this in the 80s with POSIX, I seriously doubt today's developers and researchers are capable of doing it again. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
    - mrpippy 5y ago
      CrossOver does run 32-bit Windows EXEs on macOS
dundarious 5y ago
It's quite interesting. I'm not sure that broad use of Win32/Wine for all types of GUIs would even work well for things like apps communicating with the broader desktop, and accessibility -- never mind that the desktop software stack is already a crumbling tower of complexity. But I can see it being attractive for full attention/fullscreen apps (like games) that don't use those things or by design bring their own implementations for those things, where the benefit is the reduced decision space for the developer, at the cost of the increased complexity. However, as the article states, ports are often using "compatibility layers" that are just worse versions of Wine though, so for such quasi-ports, there really is no increased complexity in using Wine instead.
laumars 5y ago
Unfortunately the GUI world seems to be settling on web rendering. While this is a massive bonus for cross platform support I’m still having a hard time agreeing that running a dozen Chromium instances is a good thing.
akkartik 5y ago
Favorited (https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=akkartik&comments=t https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=akkartik&comments=...)
encryptluks2 5y ago
I don't think Windows has a nice GUI. It is incredibly bloated.. and Windows has been pushing UWP apps for some time. Please no.. Linux already has an influx of Electron apps, we don't need Windows UI.
- ripley12 5y ago
  UWP has been unofficially done for a few years now (no official statements, but you could tell from the lack of updates) and they officially shut the door on future updates 4 months ago. https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/26/microsofts_uwp_unwanted_windows_platform/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/26/microsofts_uwp_unwant...
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    It’s actually kind of insulting, because if you were one of the few developers to believe Microsoft and write, say, business apps in it as they said, you just got the short end of the stick. It’s not a huge surprise why Microsoft can’t rally developers behind anything.
    - ripley12 5y ago
      Yeah, it’s a mess. It seems like eventually they figured out that UWP’s sandbox+packaging requirements were a huge mistake (see Project Reunion/Windows App SDK), but that realization came much too late.
      - dtx1 5y ago
        I developed for UWP, though during the early days when windows phone 10 was still a thing. Honestly it wasn't the sandboxing that turned out to be the biggest problem (see all electron apps nowadays) but that the UWP Plattform was just shit in every way possible, from the design language that forced a desktop to become a phone, the store that never got any traction or quality support, the SDK that needed at least 3 more years of hard work and lots of extensions to become useful but most importantly: The terrible monetization. Microsoft entered a market with android and iphones making developers and companys a lot of money, yet on windows phone and UWP Apps on Desktop it was impossible to make any decent amount of cash.

pjmlp 5y ago

UNIX you mean. That is why so few bother to support Linux OEMs, having some kind of POSIX support is enough for the large majority. However I still disagree, structured shell with REPL like capabilities like PowerShell are so much better and so much closer to the Xerox PARC experience.

laumars 5y ago
> UNIX you mean. Not the GP but generally speaking it’s not a great reach to say that Linux is more widely supported than POSIX. GNU-only flags are often used in shell scripts and you’ll often find binaries are packaged as a snap or Docker container thud anyone running a non-Linux system is left to compile that project themselves. Even WINE itself doesn’t officially support all POSIX-compatible UNIXs.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Yep. WINE is a second-class citizen on any platform that isn't Linux (as is most POSIX-like software these days), and requires special patches just to run on MacOS (and even paying for Crossover won't give you 32-bit binary support on Mac). For better and worse, the POSIX spec is dead. Besides a few niche use-cases where compatibility with archaic software is necessary, Linux is the new standard for this stuff.
  - q-big 5y ago
    > Linux is the new standard for this stuff. Linux is not a standard, because in opposite to, say, POSIX, it is not standardized, but is an everchanging implementation.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      I don't mean it in a literal sense, though I get where you're coming from. Think of it this way: your server software's stability is more or less defined by how well it conforms to Linux compatibility. Even software that is designed with perfect POSIX compliance won't run reliably on the majority of servers. Linux, despite not being a standard, has become a spec for server software. The kicker is that nobody can really undermine them unless you can create a true alternative with a more compelling license than GPL. If our industry wants to return to a truly standardized status-quo, we need to put aside our differences and collaborate on a next-gen spec that works. Considering that we barely did this in the 80s with POSIX, I seriously doubt today's developers and researchers are capable of doing it again. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
  - mrpippy 5y ago
    CrossOver does run 32-bit Windows EXEs on macOS

dundarious 5y ago

It's quite interesting. I'm not sure that broad use of Win32/Wine for all types of GUIs would even work well for things like apps communicating with the broader desktop, and accessibility -- never mind that the desktop software stack is already a crumbling tower of complexity. But I can see it being attractive for full attention/fullscreen apps (like games) that don't use those things or by design bring their own implementations for those things, where the benefit is the reduced decision space for the developer, at the cost of the increased complexity. However, as the article states, ports are often using "compatibility layers" that are just worse versions of Wine though, so for such quasi-ports, there really is no increased complexity in using Wine instead.

laumars 5y ago

Unfortunately the GUI world seems to be settling on web rendering. While this is a massive bonus for cross platform support I’m still having a hard time agreeing that running a dozen Chromium instances is a good thing.

akkartik 5y ago

Favorited (https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=akkartik&comments=t https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=akkartik&comments=...)

encryptluks2 5y ago

I don't think Windows has a nice GUI. It is incredibly bloated.. and Windows has been pushing UWP apps for some time. Please no.. Linux already has an influx of Electron apps, we don't need Windows UI.

ripley12 5y ago
UWP has been unofficially done for a few years now (no official statements, but you could tell from the lack of updates) and they officially shut the door on future updates 4 months ago. https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/26/microsofts_uwp_unwanted_windows_platform/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/26/microsofts_uwp_unwant...
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  It’s actually kind of insulting, because if you were one of the few developers to believe Microsoft and write, say, business apps in it as they said, you just got the short end of the stick. It’s not a huge surprise why Microsoft can’t rally developers behind anything.
  - ripley12 5y ago
    Yeah, it’s a mess. It seems like eventually they figured out that UWP’s sandbox+packaging requirements were a huge mistake (see Project Reunion/Windows App SDK), but that realization came much too late.
    - dtx1 5y ago
      I developed for UWP, though during the early days when windows phone 10 was still a thing. Honestly it wasn't the sandboxing that turned out to be the biggest problem (see all electron apps nowadays) but that the UWP Plattform was just shit in every way possible, from the design language that forced a desktop to become a phone, the store that never got any traction or quality support, the SDK that needed at least 3 more years of hard work and lots of extensions to become useful but most importantly: The terrible monetization. Microsoft entered a market with android and iphones making developers and companys a lot of money, yet on windows phone and UWP Apps on Desktop it was impossible to make any decent amount of cash.