Likelihood and consequence of MS distributing 'windblows' as a GUI built on Unix/ Linux ?
Assembled Illuminati ! Whilst following the thread: "Re: Latest generation laptops with Windows 8 preinstalled, EFI mess.."; the idea occurred that MS might eventually replace or augment Windows; by building it as a GUI plus a Unix / Linux kernel, in the way Apple, now builds the Mac OS as a GUI plus a highly configured FreeBSD kernel (or whatever); is it: 1/ possible 2/ likely and if it happened what would be the consequences ? regards Rohan McLeod
On 14/12/12 08:40, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Assembled Illuminati ! Whilst following the thread: "Re: Latest generation laptops with Windows 8 preinstalled, EFI mess.."; the idea occurred that MS might eventually replace or augment Windows; by building it as a GUI plus a Unix / Linux kernel, in the way Apple, now builds the Mac OS as a GUI plus a highly configured FreeBSD kernel (or whatever); is it: 1/ possible 2/ likely and if it happened what would be the consequences ?
regards Rohan McLeod
Unlikely - GPL issues. BSD however...
On 14/12/12 08:40, Rohan McLeod wrote:
is it: 1/ possible
Probably. :-)
2/ likely
No.
and if it happened what would be the consequences ?
They wouldn't build on top of Linux because they consider the GPL to be toxic to them, they *could* build upon something that was BSD like but I suspect it would take a root-to-tip cultural shift within the corporation for it to be considered politically acceptable to them. I suspect you probably want to take this to the luv-talk list as I'm not sure it's really Linux related. ;-) cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Quoting Chris Samuel (chris@csamuel.org):
They wouldn't build on top of Linux because they consider the GPL to be toxic to them, they *could* build upon something that was BSD like but I suspect it would take a root-to-tip cultural shift within the corporation for it to be considered politically acceptable to them.
On 14/12/12 07:36, Rick Moen wrote:
I'm not sure that changes anything; the various things that have been associated with Services For UNIX are based on products that MS has licensed or acquired and it all runs under the NT kernel using an "environment subsystem": http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc767884.aspx # Environment subsystems are Windows NT processes that emulate # different operating system environments. The Windows NT executive # provides generic services that all environment subsystems can call # to perform basic operating system functions.
From what I see the only open source components are the various GNU user space utilities that come with it, the environment subsystem (the closest bit to a kernel) doesn't appear to be open source.
cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Quoting Chris Samuel (chris@csamuel.org):
On 14/12/12 07:36, Rick Moen wrote:
I'm not sure that changes anything;
It changes any perception of validity to the recent assertion, in this space, that Microsoft Corporation won't have anything to do with GPL-licensed software -- given that they've been a major developer and distributor of same for 13 years. (Porting and maintenance of, e.g., GNU userspace utilities, Trolltech's Qt libs, Evans and Sutherland's FVWM window manager, Tridge's rsync, etc. _is_ development.) Maintained source code under a variety of open source licences including copyleft ones, here: ftp://ftp.interopsystems.com/src/ Simple point, now made twice. (I'm done.)
On 14/12/12 10:22, Rick Moen wrote:
Simple point, now made twice. (I'm done.)
I don't think I explained myself clearly enough initially then, so let's leave it there then (this is getting way OT for luv-main). :-) -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On 14/12/12 08:40, Rohan McLeod wrote:
"Re: Latest generation laptops with Windows 8 preinstalled, EFI mess.."; the idea occurred that MS might eventually replace or augment Windows; by building it as a GUI plus a Unix / Linux kernel, in the way Apple, now builds the Mac OS as a GUI plus a highly configured FreeBSD kernel (or whatever);
To a degree, Windows is already quite minimal and modular. For example, every recent version of Windows has a small ~165 MB bootable image located in C:\Recovery (.wim files are used for ramdisk images) that is a bootable Windows PE environment containing a fairly complete set of command line tools, as well as enough GUI tools to recover a broken Windows system. This base environment is also enough to run most Windows software (look at tools such as PEBuilder, which is able to produce a bootable .iso containing a WinPE image, plus software you want installed). Though Windows is by no stretch POSIX compliant, most would argue that is not necessary attribute anyway, given the huge breadth of server applications chugging away happily on Windows boxes. (You and I would disagree on that, but this *is* a Linux mailing list. Meanwhile, the rest of the world keeps on spinning.) Deployment is also modular -- "Dism" is a recent package management system for adding/removing Windows components. [0][1] And of course, Windows Installer can be fully automated/managed too. Used wisely, these two tools can be just as powerful as any Linux package manager. Basically what I’m saying is that changing to a model with a minimal Linux/Unix base wouldn’t gain anything, because they already have a minimal modular system to that does everything that Microsoft needs it to. -- [0] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824821.aspx [1] Oh, Dism can also manipulate .wim and .vhd (VM image) files directly. Sort of like chroot package management without actually needing chroot.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Jeremy Visser wrote:
Though Windows is by no stretch POSIX compliant, most would argue that is not necessary attribute anyway, given the huge breadth of server applications chugging away happily on Windows boxes.
At the moment I am running a company network that includes Windows desktops, and one core application is a Windows client/server application. It is the only reason to keep Windows running, besides the "general feeling" of the management that you cannot install anything else than Windows and MS Office: Otherwise staff will be completely cofused because that's what they know. The later point may become mute in the future: More and more people get more exposed to other platforms, particularly tablets which running "the same stuff" than their mobiles. More and more development go into apps for Android and iOS too. More and more applications being "Windows only" in the past are accessible via tablets. Windows 8 are adding to the confusion in the corporate world too. We have desktops which are running Windows 7 - what about a new system that is not desktop friendly? What about apps, how to maintain security if you have an additional way of software "creeping in"? The costs of maintaining the foundation by yourself is huge. For a company losing significant market share it is a monumental task. Microsoft was able to do that because people did not think there is an alternative and you have to pay the price, and could put part of the premium into their development (sometimes just deliberately reinventing the wheel to be incompatible with others). Being a market leader and able to lock in people is good for your business. If you are "just one of them" it hurts to have an odd system. So far my crystal ball;-) Regards Peter
Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
The later point may become mute in the future: More and more people get more exposed to other platforms, particularly tablets which running "the same stuff" than their mobiles.
I think the dominance of Microsoft has already ended, but traditional desktops will be their last holdout. Linux has become increasingly widespread on servers, in super-computers and (in the form of Android) mobile devices, as well as a variety of embedded systems. It also seems to have a following as a development environment and for desktop uses among UNIX enthusiasts and people who are dissatisfied with the alternatives. It's possible that there won't be a single dominant operating system in the next several decades, which would be a return to normality following the rise and fall of MS-DOS/MS-Windows. I expect Microsoft to continue to be a large participant in all areas of operating systems and in office applications, but the trend, at least for now, is decidedly downward. It's also possible that, ultimately, there will only be phones/tablets on one side and servers on the other, with everything in the middle (laptops, desktops, workstations) relegated to history. This could have nasty implications for software freedom, depending on what happens in the evolution of "mobile" operating systems and the extent of consolidation in the server industry. Linux might therefore "win", while simultaneously the conditions that have enabled and so contributed to its development are undermined, viz., the freedom to write software from the operating system level upward on one's own machine, without seeking permission from anybody, to publish it and to collaborate with others in its further improvement. "Secure boot" and denial of root access to mobile devices by vendors are the signs of trouble on the horizon. I would expect free software advocates and proponents of open-source to oppose lock-down and lock-in strategies. It may be that having a thriving development community with no barriers to entry is seen as sufficiently valuable commercially and in public policy to avert the threat, but the outcome is far from settled.
participants (7)
-
Allan Duncan -
Chris Samuel -
Jason White -
Jeremy Visser -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod