Tom's Definitive Linux Software Roundup: Internet Apps

[Guest]

It's mentioned at the bottom of page 4 "Web Browsers: The Rest", with the reasoning why it's not given full treatment... yet

Well thats what I get for reading the thing at midnight. :lol:

 

[Guest]

Really liked your review.
If we get more people to know linux, we will get more people to like linux.

 

[rdawise]

Very good article. I concur with the other user that a Linux article (or 2) was missing from this site (a recent article). Honestly, if Linux did game (not through WINE), it would be a lot bigger than what it is. Don't get me wrong, I have no hate for Windows as it is my primary OS.

 

[randomizer]

Adam, you should link to the forum Linux/BSD section in your article. It's pretty quiet there right now

 

[duzcizgi]

[citation][nom]adamovera[/nom]What kinds of apps work better with mono installed? Do u install the mono .exe under WINE, or install the Linux version and hook it up to WINE somehow?[/citation]
[citation][nom]mono_fantranny2[/nom]adam: Download the version of Mono for Windows here:http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/arc [...] in32-3.exeThen install it as a Windows App into WINE. For starters, the popular audio production software Ableton Live works once you install mono, but there's many others(I don't know of a comprehensive list ), but that's the only one I really use, since I pretty much get everything I need done in native Linux. The mono framework is great because it is it a free, open source alternative to installing the .NET framework, which drives pretty much all applications that were written in Visual Studio.[/citation]

Adam,

Please install mono directly in Linux distribution - not in wine.
Yes, I know that it works better in wine but first of all, let me tell my reasonings:

I am a .NET programmer since .NET 1.0 was introduced. Mono is a great cross platform runtime and framework which we can use it to have our programs running not only in Windows but also in other platforms.

In ideal, any .NET 1.x/2.0 application should be able to run under mono, as long as they don't use any external libraries through platform invoke.

If linux community, instead of reverting to a Windows emulation layer, like Wine and use the applications but try to run applications natively, we the .NET programmers will be forced to use a more "pure" approach in writing our applications, enabling them running on Linux platforms also.

I know, it might look a little weird, but once, I believed in the promise of Java, write once and run anywhere, but it didn't happen and Java is more or less stuck in enterprise applications.

.NET here is being pushed by Microsoft for nearly all types of applications on Windows, and why not Linux also benefit from this? Both desktop and server applications that we use in either environment, without any sacrifices?

I know my post is a little off-topic, but, although I write commertial programs, I still believe in free software and it should be here, to keep us all in line.

 

[Guest]

duzgizi: That post is retarded. You're telling us NOT to install Mono into WINE because it WILL allow us to use .NET applications in WINE, aka, exactly what I set out to achieve with that? That's like saying: "Don't put gas in the car, it will allow the car to run, which will then create pollution".

 

[lcthegreat]

[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]ding fries are done....[/citation]

I always get into it with nerds that swear by linux. Fact is I dont have complete functionality. The programs I use don,t work on Linux. Mac OS is completely awesome. Especially the new snow leopard. They have made leaps in innovation that even Ubuntu cant mess with. The Grand Central Dispatch is genius. Breaking up a program into fragments and equally processing the app across all the cores. PLUS apple branded software is one of a kind. even the free stuff. iMovie is worth its weight in gold. Im a musician and it is the complete machine for me. If you are a nerd with no life that enjoys passing his time by doing 3rd party Microsoft word processing and having brainstorm sessions on why Linux is the better alternative. Then maybe it is for you. Bottom line is what good is an awesome OS if you have to VM this and reboot to windows for gaming, and hack and bypass this. Too much circumventing. The time it takes you to do all this makes up for the performance hit in vista. In 2009, if you are still getting blue screens and virus's, stop watching so much porn.

 

[Guest]

Icthegreat: Mac OSX is rather renowned for not having complete functionality, hence they created the "genius" Bootcamp application. If you want to talk about performance hits, beg Tom's to do a benchmark review of cross platform applications, especially your beloved musician apps like Cubase, Native Instruments plugins, etc... They all run SLOW on Mac, using as much as twice the CPU, if there even is a Mac version. PC became the prefered musician platform a few years ago, you're behind the times..

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]MONOmg_[/nom]duzgizi: That post is retarded. You're telling us NOT to install Mono into WINE because it WILL allow us to use .NET applications in WINE, aka, exactly what I set out to achieve with that? That's like saying: "Don't put gas in the car, it will allow the car to run, which will then create pollution".[/citation]
.NET applications run with Mono do not require Wine as far as I know, so no, he isn't saying that. .NET applications are executed by the Common Language Runtime (or whatever it's called in Mono) and are not dependent on Windows libraries unless you make them dependent.

The problem with Mono is that it's supporting a propriety development platform. Microsoft owns all .NET patents and could pull a Rambus at any time.

 

[duzcizgi]

[citation][nom]MONOmg_[/nom]duzgizi: That post is retarded. You're telling us NOT to install Mono into WINE because it WILL allow us to use .NET applications in WINE, aka, exactly what I set out to achieve with that? That's like saying: "Don't put gas in the car, it will allow the car to run, which will then create pollution".[/citation]

I think I misphrased what I intended.

Let me tell it once more with a simpler form:

Wine is an emulation layer and, it allows you to run native Windows applications on top of Linux.

Mono is an implementation of .NET framework, which is platform independent.

If you'll use Mono within Wine 1. you'll use it as a Windows application and, using it as a Windows application isn't very favourable for mono, indeed, if you want to use .NET framework within any Windows use .NET framework which is more stable and mature than Mono. And it is also free and it is also available for download.

Using mono is achieving the goal of running .NET applications regardless of the underlying OS, literally, regardless of underlying CPU also.

Why I said, use it under Linux, because I want open source software developers who use .NET to pay more attention to how they are writing their programs, so that those programs can run under other operating systems also without any hassles.

Does it still look that retarded?

 

[duzcizgi]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom].NET applications run with Mono do not require Wine as far as I know, so no, he isn't saying that. .NET applications are executed by the Common Language Runtime (or whatever it's called in Mono) and are not dependent on Windows libraries unless you make them dependent.The problem with Mono is that it's supporting a propriety development platform. Microsoft owns all .NET patents and could pull a Rambus at any time.[/citation]

Randomizer,
Contrary with Java platform, .NET is a 100% open standard. Microsoft holds patents on "implementation" of certain parts of CLR, like the Garbage Collector and OS specific stuff. If you're interested, you can write your own framework with your own Garbage collecting algorithms. All the rest is open standard.

 

[Guest]

You guys are missing the point. There are plenty of apps with .NET dependencies whose devs don't care about Linux or Mono.

The point is:

If you NEED a Windows app that has no Linux equivalent, that won't run in WINE, it may be because it has unresolved .NET dependencies. If so, try installing the Windows version of the Mono Framework into WINE, which MIGHT resolve any .NET dependencies the app had, therefore allowing it to run. There are many, many apps that fall into this category.

My app that falls in this category is Ableton Live, which needs .NET/Mono to run. Ardour and Rosegarden are native Linux equivalents of Ableton, but they are nowhere near as good, they are not a viable alternative for my needs. I also use Reaper for separate audio tasks, but it runs in WINE without Mono, because it has no .NET dependencies.

 

[lcthegreat]

Once again wrong. This is what happens when non-experts in the field conduct independent studies. If you were deep enough into this sort of thing, you would understand that you will always experience a performance hit when going software. Most software manufactures in that industry utilize dedicated DSP processing. Although software versions are available, it is always preferred to go TDM. The reason Windows is the preferred choice of musicians is not the performance hit. There is none when done appropriately. It is (once again) availability of software. Waves Mercury Bundle has over a $9,000 price tag that most indie artists cant afford. And what all the people in that statistic are afraid to admit is that windows is preferred because it is way easier to pirate the software they need on that platform. P.S. the fact that you mentioned Cubase shows you know nothing. That is the worst sequencer ever. I'd rather use Adobe Audition.
processing[citation][nom]IRthegreat[/nom]Icthegreat: Mac OSX is rather renowned for not having complete functionality, hence they created the "genius" Bootcamp application. If you want to talk about performance hits, beg Tom's to do a benchmark review of cross platform applications, especially your beloved musician apps like Cubase, Native Instruments plugins, etc... They all run SLOW on Mac, using as much as twice the CPU, if there even is a Mac version. PC became the prefered musician platform a few years ago, you're behind the times..[/citation]

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]duzcizgi[/nom]Randomizer,Contrary with Java platform, .NET is a 100% open standard. Microsoft holds patents on "implementation" of certain parts of CLR, like the Garbage Collector and OS specific stuff. If you're interested, you can write your own framework with your own Garbage collecting algorithms. All the rest is open standard.[/citation]
Fair enough, I stand corrected. MS and open, that's new. Now if Apple made something open the sun would stop shining.

 

[duzcizgi]

@Randomizer:
Well, it might look really awkward, but, MS in fact isn't against open source. Nearly quarter of Visual Studio 2010 is indeed open source. (Or derived from open source)
There's such a misconception about MS, which I think is due to its size.

For example, MS has given all its network protocols to standards bodies, free of charge.
MS has from the very beginning, had CLR & C# to be an open standard that everyone wishing can build their own frameworks & compilers.
(In fact, the main dispute between MS & Sun over Java was, Sun hold *everything* about Java exclusively and it has power to change anything without giving any prior information. And MS was trying to force Sun to make Java an open standard. Sun refused, later revoked the rights it gave to MS to write its own JVM and we were without a built-in JVM in Windows XP)
MS is always keeping the implementation details propriarity, but publishes the standard as soon as it is mature. If it wasn't this way, WINE wouldn't be possible. (It mimics Win32 API so good that, even the bugs are one to one copy.) But MS doesn't say anything to them, as, they are copying only the "open standard API behavior". Not the underlying code.

 

[SneakyUK]

Why do all linux apps (and desktops) looks sooo ugly??? Not one of them seems to have a UI from later that 1995 with big ugly fonts and toolbars with oversized icons. Even firefox looks better in windows (and performs better in windows) than it does in linux, and you call it "the undisputed king of Web browsers on the Linux platform".

I'm sorry, count me out.

 

[SneakyUK]

Why do all linux apps (and desktops) looks sooo ugly??? Not one of them seems to have a UI from later that 1995 with big ugly fonts and toolbars with oversized icons. Even firefox looks better in windows (and performs better in windows) than it does in linux, and you call it "the undisputed king of Web browsers on the Linux platform".

I'm sorry, count me out.

 

[mitch074]

@SneakyUK: since, obviously, you can't see when you click on a 'submit' button, or can't read labels (double post), then I guess micronized interfaces with unreadable labels are not for you either.

If you look at KDE4's interface, or at Gnome+Compiz, then you'll see how 'retarded' they are.

Big buttons get you down? You can set them up system-wide (for a given toolset) as small or large, with text labels or icons... And since most of them are vector-based, more often than not you can resize the WHOLE THING by merely setting up your screen's DPI.

One setting, everything scaled, without jaggyness. That was already the case in 2004.

I've yet to see Windows 7 do the same.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Everyone knows Apple and open don't go together though[/citation]
Actually, Apple does a lot of stuff with/for open source code and projects. They keep their interface proprietary and tie all their hardware together because that's where the money is for them, but Webkit would still be KHTML if Apple didn't rework it and contribute back upstream. Grand Central Dispatch is open source now, but not GPL 2'd so it probably won't get official support in the kernel if the Linux community ever wanted to adopt it. Apple used to support Darwin, the BSD-underpinnings of OS X, but I think they've let that stagnate for a while or something.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Actually, Apple does a lot of stuff with/for open source code and projects. They keep their interface proprietary and tie all their hardware together because that's where the money is for them, but Webkit would still be KHTML if Apple didn't rework it and contribute back upstream. Grand Central Dispatch is open source now, but not GPL 2'd so it probably won't get official support in the kernel if the Linux community ever wanted to adopt it. Apple used to support Darwin, the BSD-underpinnings of OS X, but I think they've let that stagnate for a while or something.[/citation]
don't forget CUPS

 

[backbydemand]

[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]Fail!You had to use ~5 different versions of Linux to install your apps?[/citation]

Hang on, perfectly valid question, he's still not had an answer to it.

Isn't this as bad as saying Windows Vista doesn't install something so they are forced to use XP?

Or OSX versus OS9?

 

[lcthegreat]

Amen brother. These Linux snobs seriously need to stop riding the piping so hard. id say ever OS has its perks and disadvantages. Ultimately, it is a Microsoft Vs. Apple game. [citation][nom]backbydemand[/nom]Hang on, perfectly valid question, he's still not had an answer to it.Isn't this as bad as saying Windows Vista doesn't install something so they are forced to use XP?Or OSX versus OS9?[/citation]

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]backbydemand[/nom]Hang on, perfectly valid question, he's still not had an answer to it.Isn't this as bad as saying Windows Vista doesn't install something so they are forced to use XP?Or OSX versus OS9?[/citation]

[citation][nom]lcthegreat[/nom]Amen brother. These Linux snobs seriously need to stop riding the piping so hard. id say ever OS has its perks and disadvantages. Ultimately, it is a Microsoft Vs. Apple game.[/citation]

OK, I thought I explained this twice already, but alright, I guess the third time is a charm. I only included applications that are available in the "Add/Remove" feature of [at least] one of the top three Linux distros (Ubuntu, openSUSE, and Fedora) or as the easy to use .deb or .rpm packages from the app's vendor (.deb and .rpm simply need a double-click to begin installation, like .exe).

If the app was available in the Ubuntu "Add/Remove" or as a .deb I would use the a 64-bit version of Ubuntu to test the app's features (also to check 64-bit compatibility). In the event that an app was not compatible with the 64-bit architecture [out-of-the-box] I would then move on to the 32-bit edition of Ubuntu and append the "no64" icon to the app. Makes sense, right?

Now, since I opened up the field to include openSUSE and Fedora, they sometimes have apps in their "Add/Remove" that do not appear in Ubuntu's. Therefore I couldn't really use an Ubuntu (64 or 32-bit) to look at those apps, now could I? At that point I would use openSUSE or Fedora to look at those apps. Those two distros also use the .rpm package instead of .deb, so if an app was available as a .rpm AND NOT .deb (nor in the Ubuntu "Add/Remove"), again I couldn't use Ubuntu [out-of-the-box], so I would use openSUSE or Fedora. Makes sense, don't it?

Kubuntu is around just in case there are any apps suited to the rare .deb package/KDE GUI combination such as Konqueror, which CAN be installed in Ubuntu (a .deb package/GNOME GUI distro) only AFTER installing KDE FIRST (essentially making it Kubuntu).

The original poster was voted down, not because he/she spoke ill of Linux or the article, but instead because he/she shot their mouth off without READING, hence why their "question" was ignored by me. BTW, any of these apps can be installed on any Linux distro if you want to install them via the shell installer (using simple commands very much like installing something into DOS) or via source code (the old way, and the reason many people find Linux to be a PITA).

Oh, and it's nothing like having to REVERT to XP from Vista, or OS9 (eww!) from OSX. That analogy would hold up if I had to REVERT, say from Fedora 11 to Fedora 9, or from Ubuntu 9.04 to Ubuntu 7.10 to make an app work.

 

[Guest]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Linux, but use whatever operating system that works for you and for your needs. I have Windows 7 RC installed, and it seems like a vast improvement over both Vista and XP. I use it for software that Linux is just weak at or doesn't exist, and some light gaming. However, I try to do the vast majority of my online work in Linux, as well as a host of software that just works well. I use Gimp, Inkscape, Blender, OpenOffice (actually go-oo fork of it), K3b, Amarok, and lots more. Some of this software is also available on Windows, but some is not. However, Linux just seems to be an environment that's so much more inviting... I use the KDE 4.2 desktop, and it looks gorgeous and makes me want to do something. Windows 7 looks pretty, but I'm just not enticed to open Inkscape and make something with it, for some reason. Linux just inspires me... Maybe it's the community aspect of it, knowing that I give away my work to the Linux communities I'm involved with, and Windows feels so much more corporate...I don't know. All I know is that I feel like Linux is so much more engaging than Windows.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Adam, feel free to add to the "choose a distro" thread. Additions to the new sticky stagnated and nobody has had the time to do anything with it since it was made. If you can write a better sticky then by all means go ahead and I'll replace the current one.[/citation]

The sticky was from around 2005 when my first article went live in May, I was referring to that (without double-checking it, like a jackass). It looks pretty up-to-date now, but if you don't mind I'd like to make some minor changes. For instance, there is really no need for a section on LiveCD distros, since pretty much all of them do that now. I'd like to replace it with netbook distros. Perhaps adding some links to more online resources (some within TH, some external) would also be beneficial. The CLI command reference right here at TH and the Ubuntu forums come to mind.

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Adam, you should link to the forum Linux/BSD section in your article. It's pretty quiet there right now[/citation]

Will do on part 2, and beyond!