Thesis: We should create a distro of Linux that runs Windows binaries by default via Wine.
I can pull down a 20 year old exe and still run it today on Windows. Try doing the same with a Linux binary that's just a year old. There's no guarantee that it will be able to run based off some update that has happened. There's also no guarantee that a binary produced today on Linux will even work on the various distributions of Linux today due to the same installed library version problem.
While the Linux syscalls themselves are very stable and reliable, the c library on top of them is not. Practically all of userland is based on libc, and therefore by proxy Linux itself has a binary compatibility problem.
Because of the problems listed above (and more), there is no good way to distribute binaries for Linux. There are four (yes four!) major ways to distribute binaries, and they all have problems:
There are even more ways of distributing binaries, but these are the major ones. What's crazy is that all four methods can be used at once on a system, each with their own methods of installing, updating, and deleting applications. I won't go into the pros and cons of each method here, but there are arguments about each.
A major downside for all these methods is that application preservation is essentially non-existant for all of them. Can a person archive an application for 20 years, pull it from the dustbin, and execute it with no other effort? Maybe for AppImage? Who knows? It's a definite "no" for the other three methods.
A few years ago, Arek Hiler wrote a blog post, Win32 Is The Only Stable ABI On Linux. He is absolutely right, and I believe this insight holds the answer to Linux's compatibility problem. This is actually made possible by a genius decision for the design of Win32.
In Linux, you can make system calls directly. Just fill up some registers and make a syscall interrupt.
In Windows, you do not make system calls directly. Instead, you dynamically link to libraries that make the system calls for you. This allows Microsoft to do all sorts of shenanigans at the kernal level while providing a stable API to userspace. This little stroke of genius allows us to have both Linux and Windows on the same machine at the same time.
If you think about it, there are only two major differences between a Windows app and a Linux app. One, they use different executable formats. Two, Windows uses dynamic libraries to make system calls. Just use a PE format instead of ELF, load a couple libraries, and you essentially have a Windows application! We also already have a simple way to run Windows applications, Wine.
Wine is a miraculous project. It provides amazing compatibility with Windows applications going all the way back to the 32-bit Windows 95 era. It even implements DirectX! The difference between what Windows supports and Wine supports is approaching zero over time (especially if you stick to Win32). Wine is the magic we can use to fix our problem.
Imagine we made a new Linux distro. This distro would provide a desktop environment that looks close enough to Windows that a Windows user could use it without training. You could install and run Windows applications exactly as you do on Windows; no extra work needed. How would this work?
The distro would come with Wine pre-installed, and there would be some small patches to the Linux kernel. A small modification to the "exec" family of system calls to dispatch on executble type would allow any Linux application to fork an exec a Windows application with no effort.
A wine prefix could be setup for each user, and the desktop environment would work off of that prefix, presenting a Windows-like file system to the user, and to user applications. Linux as we know it would still be available, but hidden for the normal GUI desktop user.
The two major commercial operating systems, MacOS and Windows, are heading in the same direction. These OSs are becoming more locked down, violating privacy, and removing control user's have over their own computing environment. Both OSs are arguably building in outright spyware into their operating systems. Windows is going to take screenshots of your screen every few seconds and have an AI analyze it. MacOS has a feature called Gatekeeper, which limits what software you can run on your Mac to only those applications that Apple approves. Both Apple and Microsoft are in the process of adding the ability to scan your computer for "illegal" files and report you to the authorities.
These features are done in the name of convenience and "child safety", but the net effect is that billions of users lose their agency and control over their own computers. What happens when you no longer have any control over your computer? What happens when your operating system is a subscription? What happens when you do something these companies don't like and you are banned from using any computer?
Microsoft is already removing the ability to run Windows without an online account. If you lose your account, even for a mistake, you lose the ability to run a computer.
NOTE: I am not against Apple or Microsoft. They have amazing engineers! I don't think they're being malicious. Rather, I think the incentives for these companies are improperly aligned. Economic and governmental forces are guiding them down this path. They could absolutely change tack and try to empower users, but I think we shouldn't assume that will happen naturally.
This is why I think we need a "Windows" distro of Linux. Not only does it solve our binary compatibility problem, it also provides an onramp to Windows users who will be forced to "upgrade" to Windows 11 in October of this year. Wouldn't it be great to have a painless way to switch Linux?
Just a thought.