Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

Orm · 2009-08-11 00:00:06

Hey all, first post here and I have a question. Who among you has tried out the LUK? I already tried it under Debian, but then I managed to totally [snip] it up, so I'm hoping to get some insight from a person who is successfuly using it.

http://www.longene.org/en/index.php

For the record, I have been using Linux for only a short time but I [snip] love it, Arch in particular. I love having an OS that I can make my own. I would love it even more if I could play my games without having to go back into windows. Wine has been giving me trouble.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2009-08-13 21:41:42)

joaca_rj · 2009-08-11 01:30:27

Interesting.... never heard of it, but now I'm curious....
there are some PKGBUILDs in AUR..... but only for 32 bits....
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23679
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24603
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24578
There's binary versions for ubuntu and fedora....worth checking..

[EDIT] I know I'm not answering anything...

Last edited by joaca_rj (2009-08-11 01:31:25)

sand_man · 2009-08-11 01:48:56

I've heard of it but never tried it.
I was under the impression that it wasn't all that usable. Maybe I was wrong.

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-11 02:44:08

I'm the maintainer of the PGKBUILDs in AUR. Longene is not yet ready for general use, It can handle relatively many popular programs since it's based on wine v1.0, but will fail in most cases. However, it's faster than wine and has a promising future. I would recommend using longene with the upcomming release, which will include the latest linux kernel.

Sakurina · 2009-08-11 03:14:32

First time I hear of this as well, sounds like an interesting project; looking forward to the next release I guess!

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-11 03:46:36

yeah, i might have to set up an install on my secondary partition to test this out.

Orm · 2009-08-11 14:41:48

Wow, and here I expected all the hardcore purists to come out of the woodwork. It will be nice when they get this done, because I truly have become an addict. Also, in response to what ahcaliskan said, I thought that the developers of the kernel were opposed to adding this into the mainstream. I read the nmail that Linus sent to someone on the subject of Wine and he said it was cool as long as they kept it separate. I dunno, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. Regardless, I don't consider myself to be a penguin fanboy, but given Microsofts recent struggles, it's only a matter of time before they get [snip].

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-11 14:56:53

I think there is a chance that Linus will implement longene code to the mainstream code. Read this forum thread:
http://www.longene.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=320

Trent · 2009-08-11 15:04:47

Meh. I don't think this offers us much that we don't have already. I mean, it would be kind of cool to run Windows programs on Linux natively, but everything I need has a suitable native replacement or works fine under Wine. But I don't see that this would be so attractive for Windows users. I switched to Linux because I prefer the Linux way. Adding binary compatibility with Windows would be kind of... redundant?

That said, I say more power to them. If they can make a success out of this project, it helps the community in more ways than one. But I don't think many people who use Arch will be tempted to use the LUK as a primary operating system.

andre.ramaciotti · 2009-08-11 15:04:57

I don't know if I like it. How secure is it?

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-11 15:24:26

well longene is not a replacement of linux kernel as such, nor will it be any significant use for those who have common software support for linux that they use in daily basis. But it will definitely satisfy those who need certain softwares under linux. One solution is wine, which many use in one way another. Longene is probably more integrated than wine though.

Concerning the security, it should not be less secure than any other linux kernel, since it uses linux kernel, patched to use longene module that you compile as regular kernel module. The module handles executable files as if it were native binaries.

Last edited by ahcaliskan (2009-08-11 15:26:31)

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-11 15:29:50

Trent wrote:

Meh. I don't think this offers us much that we don't have already. I mean, it would be kind of cool to run Windows programs on Linux natively, but everything I need has a suitable native replacement or works fine under Wine. But I don't see that this would be so attractive for Windows users. I switched to Linux because I prefer the Linux way. Adding binary compatibility with Windows would be kind of... redundant?
That said, I say more power to them. If they can make a success out of this project, it helps the community in more ways than one. But I don't think many people who use Arch will be tempted to use the LUK as a primary operating system.

true, and i don't really use wine for that much anymore - but i have seen tons of people say "if only i could run application X on linux i would switch"

and this does seem like a better solution than wine.

linkmaster03 · 2009-08-11 17:43:00

I really don't think Linus would put any of this into the main kernel, and I really don't want him to. It's not like everyone wants to run Windows programs on their computer, or have any Windows crap. It's a cheap way out that should stay totally separate. It wouldn't help developers start supporting Linux natively.

Last edited by linkmaster03 (2009-08-11 17:43:55)

Ranguvar · 2009-08-11 22:08:30

Note that this doesn't allow one to run Windows apps _better_ than Wine... just faster.

The only worries I have are:
1.) Does this mean that problems in Wine and the apps Wine runs could bring down the kernel? That's half the reason I wanted to use the Linux kernel instead of NT
2.) Huge patching of the kernel. It'd be really nice if this was a loadable kernel module instead.

That said, the project certainly is interesting.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-08-11 22:08:46)

Themaister · 2009-08-11 22:56:29

Linux kernel with Windows binary compability? I sense a winner Of course, this shouldn't be part of the main kernel, but as a kernel module for the mainline kernel would be really nifty. This would make it a lot cleaner to use Windows software on Linux I think. The module could then load other "plugin"-modules which are fine tuned for certain programs. For example a photoshop module, which either adobe themselves could write with a very little effort, or the community. Don't know if this is a "sane" approach or not. A lot of people would switch to Linux if is wasn't for the "I really need to use app X", so fine tuning for apps can be a good idea.

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-11 23:37:56

I believe this approach will attract some software developers to port thier products to Linux with a cost efficient way: I agree on a modular solution that could be an realistic option.

Linux is not a micro kernel, at least not not a hybrid one as such. So it's theoretically possible to bring down the kernel, as with most kernels would. However, I doubt linux is designed to allow such risk factor. Besides the longene patches aren't that much deeply rooted, as you'll see from the source code.

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-12 01:51:08

Ranguvar wrote:

2.) Huge patching of the kernel. It'd be really nice if this was a loadable kernel module instead.

that would definately be the best way to approach it.

Orm · 2009-08-13 17:59:06

Just as some disambiguation, it really is only a kernel module. Read the [snip] download page and you would know that.

Anyway, I'm just thinking about what something like this could do for the economy. Imagine, if you offer people a free alternative to Windows and Mac OS X that does everything that Windows and mac does AND MORE, then people will be on that like stink on shit. The only problem we all really have is the firmly held belief in the uneducated public that Linux is hard to use. And by forcing people to learn to use computers the way they were meant to be used, I can see nothing but positive development in the future.

Edited by B: Mind your language please

Last edited by B (2009-08-13 21:25:08)

Ranguvar · 2009-08-13 19:07:17

Orm wrote:

Just as some disambiguation, it really is only a kernel module. Read the [snip] download page and you would know that.

The [snip] download page says nothing about that, though it's possible I missed it or the site doesn't like my web browser (elinks). In any case, you need to seriously chill.

Orm wrote:

And by forcing people to learn to use computers the way they were meant to be used, I can see nothing but positive development in the future.

I completely agree that making the OS an isolated thing that has much less impact on applications and therefore is forced to compete with other OSen on its own merit alone would be great... but "the way they were meant to be used"?? Who decides that? You? Me? Torvalds? Gates? Stallman?

EDIT by Snowman: bad language removed

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-11 00:00:06

Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#2 2009-08-11 01:30:27

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#3 2009-08-11 01:48:56

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#4 2009-08-11 02:44:08

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#5 2009-08-11 03:14:32

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#6 2009-08-11 03:46:36

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#7 2009-08-11 14:41:48

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#8 2009-08-11 14:56:53

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#9 2009-08-11 15:04:47

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#10 2009-08-11 15:04:57

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#11 2009-08-11 15:24:26

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#12 2009-08-11 15:29:50

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#13 2009-08-11 17:43:00

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#14 2009-08-11 22:08:30

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#15 2009-08-11 22:56:29

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#16 2009-08-11 23:37:56

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#17 2009-08-12 01:51:08

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#18 2009-08-13 17:59:06

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

#19 2009-08-13 19:07:17

Re: Linux Unified Kernel (AKA: Longene)

Board footer