> <i>In addition, for several years now, Microsoft's WSL developers have been working on mapping Linux API calls to Windows and vice-versa. A lot of the work needed for Windows apps to run without modification on Linux has already been done.</i><p>This argument makes little sense: that "vice versa" is wholly unsubstantiated and without it the rest collapses. Making Linux binaries work on NT (which already <i>has</i> a subsystem concept; Interix proved that this could be done) in a way where they interact little with the Windows desktop, and making not just NT binaries but <i>Win32</i> binaries work smoothly on Linux, are almost entirely unrelated problems.<p>It is true that MS owns the code necessary to make this happen, that WINE is an existence proof that it can be done shockingly well even without that code, and that there is both code and expertise at MS for stuffing Linux concepts and NT concepts in the same kernel. But that's about it.
Here's a dopey idea: What if Microsoft open-sourced the Windows NT kernel? (While retaining some proprietary drivers, etc..)<p>If handled well, a community would blossom around "NT," with multiple "unofficial" distros (maybe one with full POSIX compatibility), and lots and lots of happy developers. If things went really well, they might even achieve the resources necessary to create Windows Phone 2.0.<p>Microsoft could still make money from consumer/enterprise support plans (i.e. AppleCare), and via commissions on sales in the Windows app store. And an open-source Windows could lead to growth as a cloud OS, driving revenue for MS Azure.<p>Open sourcing the Windows kernel would be the ultimate culmination of Microsoft's turnaround, and IMHO a fair penance for evil deeds past. Nothing could do more to invigorate the open-source community. I would be so delighted I might even start to use Bing! It's never going to happen, but it is a very pleasant dream. Far better than "One Kernel to Rule them All!"
I'd like to use linux, and install it from time to time, but am always eventually worn down by problems, some trivial & some less so, that could mostly be solved, but at the cost of research & fiddling time I'm not interested in spending.<p>The issues largely fall into two categories - missing software, and missing or undercooked hardware support. If Microsoft did signal to the market an increased long-term support for Linux with a concomitant warning about Windows' longevity, I suspect these issues would be mitigated. Bring it on.
I suggested on Mini-Microsoft about 10 years ago that Microsoft do an 'Apple'. Apple took a free OS from BSD and put their own GUI over the top of it. I suggested that MSFT do the same sort of thing, that being to put their Windows GUI on top of the Linux OS instead of using the Linux X11 GUIs.<p>This had the advantage that the underlying OS base would no longer need maintaining by Microsoft, and all their coding efforts could be allocated to the Windows GUI, thus permitting Windows versions to be released far more often than every 5 years as was the case back then.<p>Being full of Softies, the crowd on Mini-Microsoft dismissed my suggestion out of hand, it being sacrilege of course to even think of marrying the 'upstart' Linux with the 'sacred' Windows code.<p>Naturally, today I am smiling to myself that MSFT could have taken my idea and run with it, but were too hidebound to do so and have lost 10 years in the process.
I agree with the skepticism here regarding the ease of getting Windows software working on Linux. The Wine and CrossOver folks are doing the Lord's work but even they have their limits.<p>Linux software tends to not rely on much. Linux makes it really hard to rely on much. The internals change often and the kernel is not nice to people who try to rely on implementation details, of what you can from usermode. You can hardly rely on libc when you are on Linux, and many try not to, to be more portable.<p>Windows software on the other hand is wild. Just look at the myriad of techniques used by anti-debugging and anti-reverse-engineering tools. A Linux binary wouldn't dream of reimplementing the runtime linker itself, but that's exactly what many packers do on Windows, to obscure the import address table and make patching/debugging harder. Did you know you can write into another processes address space with WriteProcessMemory? Why do we even have that lever!?<p>That's only considering usermode. But apps are just as eager to rely on kernel mode implementation details too, in the past it was even common to patch the SSDT to modify syscall behavior. Anti-cheat in video games can still do evil things even on Windows 10; nProtect GameGuard's kernel module seems to hide its usermode processes somehow. I'm pretty sure Linux kernel modules can't easily do that.<p>I'd love better Windows compatibility on Linux. Heck, I'm excited by what Valve is doing with Proton too. But in the end, I think much of the Windows software library is just too deeply ingrained in the Windows legacy.
The Windows NT kernel has better hardware support and Microsoft is showing that they can run a full Linux userland on top of it. What do they gain from shipping Linux for the desktop?
When one of these companies realizes they can create a polished Linux distribution, using the absurd amount of funds they have, the future of desktop computing is theirs.<p>And the funny thing is it is probably less work than maintaining their current solution.<p>Also I don’t think it has to be an either or situation. There is nothing stopping MS from supporting NT systems and putting future development into Linux systems. Similar to how they’re doing .NET and .NET Core. Over time they can port their office suite and other programs and drivers to the Linux system and the users will come with them.<p>And at this point they’ve already started to drive developers away from NT because of their Linux offerings. Let’s be honest, most developers would pick Unix in a heartbeat over NT (to develop in and deploy to) and now they have that option.<p>Also if anyone with power at Microsoft is reading this and this is a path the company ever takes: don’t make a ChromeOS, make an Ubuntu.
No. They just plan to use developer tools (chrome based browser + vstudio) to push their one-push-publish-to-cloud.<p>embrace (chromium), extend (dev tool features that will only work with vsStudio but is awesome), extinguish (tool now only work with vsstudio when serving from azure because they are moving faster than open standards.)
They could even use WSL to put Linux on top of the NT kernel. It'd be called Microsoft GNU/Windows.<p>Or they could ditch the GNU part and go for a non-GNU libc and userland like the article suggests. That wouldn't save nearly as much money as the article speculates because the Windows userland is humongous - NT is a small part of the whole, much like the Linux kernel is a vanishingly small part of the distributed effort of building desktop Linux distros.
Back when Windows 8 was causing all sorts of problems I did my annual top ten list of what's coming in the following year. One of my predictions was that Microsoft would move Windows to using Linux as the back end.<p>Overall Windows would become much more stable, they might be able to get some Mac users to switch and they could put more people on getting the UI right. Like a lot of my bolder predictions on each years list I got it way wrong.<p>In my defense I didn't know anyone at Microsoft at the time to run my idea by. Still think it makes some sense though in a way they ended up giving Windows at the *nix command line as a gift to Mac developers. I'm happy with Windows 10, for me it's just good enough.
Only for the record, "Lindows" actually existed, it was the name (retired/changed because MS didn't like it [0]) of Linspire [1]:<p><a href="https://www.linspirelinux.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.linspirelinux.com/</a><p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com...</a>.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire</a>
Microsoft is always a business not IT. In fact, underlying the whole IT revolution they are the key to transform it to business to the horror of the whole industry. Software as a business is not a model even for ibm. We have share/guide then and even now you can run Ibm os on pc.<p>Hence the question what is the business model. It is nothing to do with technology. It is as godfather have taught it - nothing personal but business.<p>The article mentioned about azure, here Xbox, guess pc side the old business they do os and oem do hw (vs iphone and mac mode of integrated business down to make apple cpu), rental model ...<p>Hence the question is not about whether it can but how.<p>It is all business to Microsoft and google. A bit different on apple side in the past ...<p>That is why we should be worry. The old embrace, extend and extinct is logical path for all business and empire.<p>Anyway, they are moving and get that here and there like github. But would they worry as a buisness about java and android model.<p>Let us see.
If Microsoft has an OS based on Linux and with good UI and MS support this rocks! Today it's not about OS, but about cloud services and Software used by users.... Email, Calendar, something more valuable... Anyway, Linux is about free configuration, make API for anything you wish, that is important for a user or (heavy-user). iOS and Apple already done this I think. (in some way, You can't change Apple Binary code, but You have API-s to change the behavior of MAC-OS in real world). It's complicated story anyway.
If it happens, it would be the most jaw dropping event of the decade.<p>But MS has a room to keep their own ecosystem as losing it will have less diversity as we've seen when they dropped Edge not to mention the world will come to a halt without Windows that can run apps from the last 20 years.<p>Having a UNIX kernel at the core would be really nice which would make developers easy to port apps between OS but how would the world deal with all the irreplaceable apps on Windows?
I think that such a product, even if developed internally, it would be stopped by the business team. The reason being it would be better than Windows in many aspects.<p>I'm a long time Linux user, but got an ultraportable lately and kept windows on a small partition (mostly for BIOS updates).
Linux was installed without any issues, everything except the fingerprint reader works. The interesting thing is that it does not just work, it works better. The most pronounced difference is the touchpad. On windows it is frequently stuck —and it's not palm rejection because I never had an issue in Linux. The 3 finger click that is paste or _open in new tab_ in Linux, in Windows opens Cortana. With Linux battery lasts longer. With Windows, the fan starts turning without any reason while the process manager says _no process is running_. Very annoying. Windows constantly nug me because I used my skype account which, according to them, does not have an associated email. Applications go into full screen without any indication on how to close them. I have to search for software on the internet, via my browser. The other day I wanted to start Windows for a Lync meeting and it decided it has to install updates and restarted a couple times before allowing me to continue with my life.
Perhaps the most infuriating thing was the candy crash tiles that greeted me when I first booted the computer.<p>I'm not saying you should use Linux, but you should ask for better Windows.
This [0] is a link to a portion of 2018 Bryan Lunduke's presentation where he gives a refresher on Microsoft + Linux, and goes on to discuss Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactics and how they're relevant here.<p>[0] <a href="https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=425" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=425</a>
Does this even make sense unless Office gets ported to Linux? Given that Office 365 is turning into Microsoft's main source of desktop revenue, porting Office to Linux is what will allow Microsoft to start to build an entire Linux desktop experience that still generate revenue for the company.
They could. However, if they did, they would need to open source everything they ship with it, if I remember the GPL correctly.<p>But also, I think it would be a daring and interesting business move. I'd probably start using Windows more if they did, and usage is the ultimate prize these days.
I think yes in 10-15 years business-wise that it would be a good plan and great switcheroo. The reality though is that there is so much Windows technical debt, Microsoft employees looking for a promotion, and let alone future unknown technological advances and trends that it will never happen. It may be possible...but who cares (see: above ^)?
If I was Microsoft I'd rewrite windows on top of Linux but keep API for apps the same before it's too late<p>Mac is used by most tech companies because of terminal and tools it can run. But Linux can run all of them so windows built on Linux will have best of both worlds.
They could and they should. Linux is an amazing OS and to have a great UI on top of it that millions of people are comfortable with would be tremendous.<p>Think about it. The year of Linux on the desktop brought to you by Microsoft.