Welcome!

Linux Authors: Gilad Parann-Nissany, Maureen O'Gara, Glenn Rossman, Hovhannes Avoyan, RealWire News Distribution

Related Topics: Linux

Linux: Article

Windows On Linux: Skepticism About "David" Surfaces

Windows On Linux: Skepticism About "David" Surfaces

Rob Thomas, of LinuxElectrons.com, has been thinking and writing about the software, presently codenamed "David," that we reported on last week in our story Linux vs Windows: Another Great OS Leap Forward On the Way? 

David is being touted by its Philippines-based inventors, SpecOps Labs, as solving the conundrum still not yet solved by Wine - the Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix - namely that of enabling all major Microsoft Windows applications to run on Linux.

"From a very high level view of Project David," Thomas writes, "SpecOpS seems to be serious about the venture. Nonetheless, their Web site is not complete and is missing quite a few links. Some of the most important links on this page which contain PDF documents that support their claims are broken."

An analysis is in order, Thomas says, from the facts known today. He then proceeds "The analysis will consist of only the nuggets that can be gleaned from the SpecOpS Labs Web site:

"One of the problems of the MS Windows OS is that it is subject to crash applications and itself. While studying the Microsoft Windows OS, we found the design flaw that causes this problem. One of the causes of this flaw is the method that Microsoft used to interface the WES with the OS Kernel. Certain functions within the WES are integrated directly into the Windows OS with full system privileges. This gives more speed to applications, but due to the full OS access the applications are prone to conflict at times, which causes the applications to crash."

I don't know how SpecOpS Labs "discovered" this design flaw. If I remember correctly, NT 3.51 had a video performance problem. The performance bottleneck was due to the video API not residing in kernel space (lots of overhead). The fix was to move the video API into kernel space with NT 4.0, and it happened. In fact, most hardware kernel intensive task's moved into kernel space. SpecOpS is lame for even claiming that.

"An example of another improvement that we have made in Microsoft's WES is the positioning of the Windows API. In the MS Windows OS, the Windows API is now sitting on top of several layers that separate it from the Windows OS kernel. These layers affect the speed of the OS. In our design we have integrated the Windows API directly into the Linux kernel giving our WACS greater speed than the Windows OS."

When Microsoft moved those bottlenecks into kernel space, they opened up a "can of worms" so to speak. Moving that code into ring 0/kernel space meant that any programming error could now crash the whole OS. We are all familiar with the BSOD's (blue screen of death). In NT 3.51, that API was in ring 3 for a reason, to offer crash protection. That was the trade off in NT 4, moving bottlenecks into kernel space, but increasing the probability of an OS crash immensely. Given this history, SpecOpS probably can increase the performance of WIN32, but SpecOpS will face the same challenge that Microsoft has had in the past. Looking over Project David's validation plan, it is not apparent how they will not experience the same problems that have plagued Microsoft. Unless they exercise every single API function with all the possible combinatorial variables and concurrent paths, there is no guarantee that SpecOpS will be faster or more stable than Microsoft.

With Windows 2000 Microsoft introduced a new driver architecture to solve those pesky BSOD's. Most of the BSOD's were caused by poorly written third party drivers. Of course end users had no way of discerning exactly who caused the crash, so of course, they called Microsoft, or their hardware vendor. These calls translated into bad PR and huge support costs. The new driver architecture removed most of the actual driver programming (logic) from the third parties and placed it into the hands of Microsoft. Most device drivers are now written against an interface block that Microsoft provides for the kernel. However, kernel mode programming is still available.

"This is the construction phase of David, and is done concurrently with the systems design. The purpose of this phase is to implement the systems design and develop it into a fully functioning production model of the software. During this phase David is fabricated, built, integrated, tested, and evaluated. DLSU and the NCC will work together to complete this phase of the development. Time to complete: 6 to 8 weeks."

Six to eight weeks to write what took Microsoft 10 years to do. This sounds suspect. Unless they are starting out with a code base that already exists, this is an impossible milestone to achieve in the allotted time. Gee, you have to emulate WIN3.1 (WOW16) all the way to the Windows XP API.

From someone who has sat in front of Windows kernel debuggers and logic analyzer screens for quite a few years (from the MS-DOS days), I remain highly skeptical. From the SpecOpS website it appears that they have been working on this since the 00'-01' time frame. So maybe they do have working code. If their claims are true, then SpecOpS Labs is set to slay Goliath."

More Stories By Linux News Desk

SYS-CON's Linux News Desk gathers stories, analysis, and information from around the Linux world and synthesizes them into an easy to digest format for IT/IS managers and other business decision-makers.

Comments (16) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
CEObeliever 05/05/04 10:17:34 AM EDT

Hey I'm in the Philippines, have met the CEO several times before, I would extremely surprised if there is so much as a sniff of 'scam' attached to this. I reckon his reputaion and track record are far more important to him than to be associated with a fraud of any type * that's just my 2 cents!

Fecal Extrusion 04/30/04 09:08:40 AM EDT

You have to respect any project that takes an O/S sale away
from Microsoft.

It would be great for a few dozen more vendors to come up
with something similar to David, and FORCE that proven
monopolist to lower the cost of Windows.
(Not like this would all of a sudden make me rush out and
buy Windows or anything...)

We should be paying what it's WORTH, not what they can
get away with charging.
People don't pay hundreds for Microsoft products because
they honestly feel it's worth the expense, they pay it
because they have no choice - if they want to play with the rest of the world!

climacs 04/29/04 12:34:34 AM EDT

yo guys i'm from the Philippines.. just want to add that i'm also a skeptic about this David project. but hopefully they can pull this off. that will be great for the open-source world.

Mode1Bravo 04/27/04 07:31:38 PM EDT

It would be greate if all holds true with respect to the claims but I tend to agree with "Tanner". It does sound like a scam... I'll believe it when I see it...

ripcrd 04/26/04 04:10:01 PM EDT

After checking the SpecOps Labs site, it looks like somebody put together "just enough" info to get investments. We'll see how this shakes out in the next few days. If they still have "insert Marketing info here" on their site in a week or so, maybe it's a scam.

tanner 04/26/04 02:49:13 PM EDT

sounds like a scam

Vaporware 04/26/04 11:26:01 AM EDT

look at the SpecOps press release: the entire statement is "the release will be," "the product will be," "in development."

so basically someone identified a market and said "Hey, there's money to be made in reinventing the wine wheel. let's do it!"

clarification 04/26/04 11:24:27 AM EDT

actually, *looking* at a stolen codebase is not in itself illegal. Copying it is, so whoever gave them a copy is the one that has committed a crime

dioscaido 04/26/04 11:22:55 AM EDT

Any bets on what % of David is built on the leaked Win2k code? Not that companies based from the Phillipines aren't inherently trustworthy... I'm just sayin.

Progman3k 04/26/04 11:21:10 AM EDT

No one needs this solution. Wine has been evolving steadily.
The Wine developers have succeeded in modularizing just about every aspect of their Windows API to the point where a whole other operating system (ReactOS) can use it!
Not to mention that there has also been some cross-pollination of Wine with Cygwin.

THOSE are the solutions to bet on, and not simply because they're older and more established but because they are open-source and have been audited by thousands, with some of the best minds on the planet on top of it!

How is ONE company going to match that without the same number of developers and expertise?

I remain sceptical, but I do wish them luck.

anonymOus 04/26/04 11:18:00 AM EDT

The SpecOps Labs web page says it all. The 'solution' is for "Linux" whereas Wine will run on FreeBSD and all the various GNU/Linux forks.

When specopslabs gets a product that can run on BSD and GNU/Linux, then they have something. Until then, Wine works better, because at least it WORKS.

Illegal, yes 04/26/04 11:11:22 AM EDT

The Phillipines are a signatory of the Berne convention and as such have to abide by its terms.
Basically, they have to abide by international copyright laws

VC 04/26/04 11:05:59 AM EDT

Actually, would this even be illegal?

If the codebase was stolen in the US, looked at in the phillipines and a program written based on that looking, would the program be legal in the US or not?
And what about elsewhere in the world?

Is this "David" based on STOLEN CODE?? 04/26/04 11:05:10 AM EDT

Various comments on the Net seem to suggest that this *may* be a re-engineer of the Win32 api based on the stolen win2k codebase.
The Phillipines is not exactly known for its strict adherence to intellectual property laws.

Wine Developers Respond!!! 04/26/04 11:02:54 AM EDT

There is an interesting thread on wine-devel about this, basically we just don't know what its going on about.

tsmithnj 04/26/04 10:59:38 AM EDT

If Wine/David becomes so good that a windows program runs *as well* on Linux(under wine) as it does on windows, Linux may suffer the same fate as OS/2. Remember WIN/OS2? The development community saw this functionality as an excuse to write their apps. to windows (why worry about OS/2 when they have WIN/OS2?) Before you knew it, nobody was writing OS/2 apps..... and OS/2 cratered