As you probably heard, Microsoft will include Linux LTS in Windows.
The main kernel will be NT still. What do you think, can this be done the other way around? Linux as the main kernel, with Microsoft's own desktop environment which resembles current Windows 10 so the average user wont freak the fuck out, NT there for compatibility with GUI support. this way Microsoft could bring Linux to the home user.
If this is done right, users would just get an update and boom, Linux on home computers, with working Windows apps. In the transitioning phase Microsoft would say "concentrate on linux as it's the future" to the developers, so after a few years NT could be dropped.
What's the deal to Microsoft you ask? There would be proprietary components of the new system (for example the DE, which could break the compatibility of the new apps with other Linux distributions), so they would still charge OEMs for installing it, and they wouldn't have to maintain NT no more, which might mean that they could save money/work with this, I'm not sure. Also maybe they could fuck with Red Hat or I don't know who, in the enterprise, or anywhere where Linux is needed instead of Windows.
What do you think, would this work or is it just a delusion of mine.
Year of the Linux desktop by Microsoft?
freebsd is more based and redpilled than linux and is a more permissive license. Logistically it makes sense for microsoft to choose the freebsd kernel. This would in turn add freebsd support for nearly every computer out there.
It's a delusion. The so-called "kernel" in Windows is nothing more than a system-call compatibility layer. That being said, it's awfully nice and bodes well for the future.
However, Windows will not drop NT and replace it with something else, fat chance. There are too many legacy APIs that they stil maintain and too much secret sauce in NT for Windows to just open up and implement support for in Linux.
Let's take an example, say Microsoft implements full NTFS support for their new integrated Linux kernel, what's stopping anyone from just saying "fuck this Microshit OS" and then use NTFS on any other Linux distro?
After three decades of basing their entire business model on locking down users by making closed standards and features that are incompatible with other OSes, they can't suddenly change this over night.
No, Microsoft clearly wants the user to still use Windows. This is why they implemented the Linux system call API, they want even more users to use Windows. They no longer require you to install it on your own system at home any more, but you are still using Microsoft services and Microsoft products when you interact with Azure cloud services such as Office. This is what Microsoft wants in the long run, to force their users to cloud subscription models and make them dependent on it.
>a license that is one step away from no license at all and allows corporations to co-opt your hard work into their bloated shitcode and not contribute back is "permissive"
Holy shit, this is the second thread corporate shitlords have tried to push *BSD license. Fuck you and fuck the *BSD license, you corporate whores.
Why don't you celebrate the success of Sony and Apple on the backs at all those FreeBSD developers working for free and receiving nothing in return too user?
I'm just some dude in my bedroom man I am a neet. Running xubuntu here. My hard drive is a cheap five dollar chinese usb and my computer has 2 gb of ram and is essentially a macbook air clone made out of plastic.
I am by no means some corporate bigwig. I am a common man. And I see the bsd as being more successful on the long term of regulating business. It is essentially communism vs free trade.
Trade should be regulated but not all aspects of it.
I don't see microsoft paying many linux people's checkbooks either so I think both linux and freebsd are equal on the not getting paid for it aspect. How much does google pay linux devs?
>I'm just an everyday man
>b-b-b-but GPL is communism!!!!!
Fuck off shill.
>I don't see microsoft paying many linux people's checkbooks either so I think both linux and freebsd are equal on the not getting paid for it aspect.
Microsoft donates $500k anually to the Linux Foundation, what the fuck are you on about?
Sony hasn't donated shit to FreeBSD, it doesn't even mention it anywhere.
microsoft do pay alot of money to the Linux foundation. This is bad though because they got a lot of influence what's going to be put into Linux
>Embrace
>Extend
>Extinguish
I dunno I think freebsd developers generally get hired to work on the proprietary versions pretty quickly.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
And many Linux developers are Google employees. Apple at least contributes upstream, and have been a major driving force behind many BSD projects like LLVM/clang (in terms of manpower and money). Sony, on the other hands, are greedy chinks that just take take take because they have no honor, integrity or consciousness.
It's Explorer.exe/Linux now, bitch.
microsoft are a member because they have azure which runs linux so microsoft have a vested interest in getting linux development to support their use case, it's not about EEE, that's why companies like at&t, google, ibm, oracle, vmware, facebook, oath(verizon), uber, toyota etc are all members of the linux foundation
Unix variations are dead, Linux is the present and the future
CORPORATE PR
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
P
R
I have given very little actual money over to linux in my time. It's okay if it is gratis.
Linux is a kernel.
No, it's a lifestyle.
>The so-called "kernel" in Windows is nothing more than a system-call compatibility layer...
maybe it could work the other way around
>However, Windows will not drop NT and replace it with something else, fat chance. There are too many legacy APIs that they stil maintain...
they wouldn't have to maintain it anymore which cloud be a huge benefit
Let's take an example, say Microsoft implements full NTFS support for their new integrated Linux kernel, what's stopping anyone from just saying "fuck this Microshit OS"...
make it propreitary
>After three decades of basing their entire business model on locking down users by making closed standards
locked down proprietary DE
>This is why they implemented the Linux system call API, they want even more users to use Windows
maybe they did it because their secret plan is OP.
>you are still using Microsoft services and Microsoft products
so would I on the new system
cuck life
>maybe it could work the other way around
What do you even mean by this?
>they wouldn't have to maintain it anymore which cloud be a huge benefit
But they give up control over it, which they obviously don't want to.
>make it propreitary
Can't, GPL
>locked down proprietary DE
Nobody uses Windows because it has an awesome shell. People use Windows because it is a platform to run the software they actually need. Once you can run that software on other platforms, then nobody will use Windows and it will die.
>maybe they did it because their secret plan is OP.
OP's plan is just the fever dream of someone who barely knows anything about technology.
Can you elaborate? What do you mean "use case"?
>freebesd
>tranny coc
>cuck license
>based
lol no
openbsd is the only acceptable bsd
ntfs is supported in the linux kernel.
>communism
Gommunism of BSD and other pushover licenses. Suckers make software, while some komrade in a big corporation/government takes all the credit.
>free trade
Embodied by freedom-protecting GPL.
>For the glory of open source and your corporate overlords, make sure to support BSD and other licenses, so that we can make lots of money out of your work!
Linux is a kernel.
sure, since microsoft have well paying customers that use linux on azure (their cloud compute platform) microsoft now have a reason to care about linux insofar as their well paying business customers are concerned, the 'use case' here is a bit vague and depends on what microsoft's customers want linux on azure for but in general what is good for their customers is good for them
the thing to remember is that the linux foundation doesn't really do a lot, they manage and track some standards and offer training/certification and microsoft has partnered with the training/certification part since they want people certified to work on linux on azure, and the linux foundation also funds other sub foundations, two of which that microsoft support with their linux foundation membership funds are the openjs foundation and the r programming language consortium
you can basically think of it as microsoft paying a penance to support some things that their customers use