"If Linux is to really catch on like wildfire as a desktop

replacement then is really

should become a universal OS."

Key to any "destop replacement" should be native code. In other words, if you want Linux to be a replacement that takes the world by storm, why settle for those shitty solutions that even Mac users hate (virtual machines and other emulation nonsense). Native applications are the final solution, and are far less prone to emulation errors and other incompatibilities.

To borrow your horribly worded and strange metaphor, imagine that you moved to the state of Idaho, only to discover that Idaho has a entirely different electric system, and none of your electronics will work as is! The good news is that the cost of living is cheap in Idaho, and you can easily pick up either a converter, or you can replace your stuff. The converter is simple, but a fire hazard. A few compaines are willing to provide their customers with a slightly different product capable of working in Idaho, at a very slight cost, or sometimes even free. Now, most people don't want to have to put up with the BS of buying a converter to use the stuff they already own; what's nessecary is basic support for Idaho out of the box. Only then will Linux accomplish its goal of desktop replacement, if that is somehow a worthy goal.

A long time ago, before Microsoft cleansed the earth of its competitors, software would come with multiple disks, for multiple types of systems. In particular, I recall an old James Bond game that was available for Commodore64, PC-DOS, Amiga, and I think Macintosh. Unreal Tournament 2004 works just fine on Linux, Windows, and I believe Mac. By purchasing CrossOver, you implicitly reward stopgap solutions and discourage native code, and you wind up holding that software for ransom via bounties.

Finally, remember that this "Gauntlet" only applies to the installation of software. That's right, they want the user community to perform the most rudimentary Q&A possible, and repeat this in the future to make sure no regressions appear in the installers. That's not so bad for an open source project, but CodeWeavers actively sells their product. CrossOver costs 75 dollars for a CD installer of it. If I'm paying money, it's because I don't have the time and patience to get WINE working; this scarcity also applies to testing whether an application INSTALLS or not. I would have imagined this to be something easily automated with a few scripts they should be capable of writing in house: 1. copy a fresh image of WINE windows 2. copy whatever package you're trying to install to the image 3. run the installer 4. execute a macro to install the software in a standard way 5. verify that there isn't any diff between this and a known working image.

There should be some modifications to that for times when regressions appear, but you get the idea.

Justin Dugger

I think the point was kind of missed. If you cannot evaluate the competition's software/applications side-by-side it is not a very good comparison. Also, admit it, the majority of people on this list are well above average when it comes to technical acumen. If Linux is to really catch on like wildfire as a desktop replacement then is really should become a universal OS. It will need to run any desktop application from any desktop OS. Think about it this way - If you moved to Florida (or your favorite location) and the requirements to live there were that you HAD to paint your house a specific set of colors, it had to be build a certain way, and you had to wear reed skirts with a tank top and flip-flops only a few people would find that appealing. Now, it the clothing and housing restrictions were removed, move people would live there. Pretty much the same thing when it comes to the desktop environment.