
Windows 11 could run on Linux - ggm
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3438856/call-me-crazy-but-windows-11-could-run-on-linux.html
======
aasasd
I'll start taking these delusional ravings remotely seriously when authors try
to analyze what it would be like to implement the driver stack, the graphics
stack, the security model etc. on top of a different kernel, and demonstrate
that it would change anything for the best. And not just throw away
compatibility with twenty years of accumulated software and hardware.

So far it's only “MS did a Linux-to-Win layer with questionable performance,
it means they could totally do the opposite with negligible loss while keeping
drivers for millions of device models working! And compatibility with software
that hooks at every point in the Windows APIs! See, Wine does a small portion
of that _just fiiiine_ after the twenty six years of development.”

~~~
thrower123
This sort of thing reminds me of one of my favorite Microsoft UserVoices,
which is asking for a Linux version of Visual Studio - hundreds and hundreds
of comments from people who are presumably software developers, who seem to
think that it would be trivial to port that behemoth of C/C++/.NET/whatever
code, with its decades of accumulated cruft, over to run natively on another
operating system.

devenv.exe isn't even 64-bit yet...

~~~
mehrdadn
The idea of a Linux version does seem ridiculous like you said, but I'm not
sure lack of 64-bit is a good example to illustrate it. They already migrated
much of VS2008 to .NET when they did 2010, which to me seemed like a herculean
feat, for what was quite questionable end-user gain (and I'm being quite
generous with that assessment), and .NET should've made architecture-
independent easier. Lack of 64-bit just seems to be due to the cost not
justifying the benefit rather than the feat itself being so herculean per se.

~~~
thrower123
The main problem there is that it runs like a dog and thrashes when you have
big solutions and get near to 2GB of RAM usage. It's pretty silly on
workstations that have 16-32 GB of total memory available. When they first
justified the decision not to move to 64-bit a decade ago, it was more
defensible, but time has moved on hard, and they've been fighting that
decision, moving bits and pieces out of process ever since.

------
nguoi
I'm open to the concept but not where this article takes it.

Registry backups shouldn't be expected to be any easier with a different
kernel. In fact, if anything it will introduce a lot more bugs, even just from
programs that rely on kernel bugs.

There's no reason to believe NT is any less 'fresh' than Linux. It undoubtedly
does some things better. Even as a Linux user, throwing that away would seem a
massive shame.

While basing Windows on Linux may make some development easier, it also throws
away the unique proposition that Windows provides.

It would take a lot of internal motivation to overcome the people who founded
their careers on building an operating system for Microsoft.

~~~
techntoke
> There's no reason to believe NT is any less 'fresh' than Linux. It
> undoubtedly does some things better. Even as a Linux user, throwing that
> away would seem a massive shame.

> While basing Windows on Linux may make some development easier, it also
> throws away the unique proposition that Windows provides.

Like what exactly? Do you have examples or just feel this way?

~~~
missjellyfish
Two Words: Group Policies.

~~~
srbby
group policies are user mode

~~~
mehrdadn
How would you implement a group policy like "Audit the access of global system
objects" in user-mode on Linux?

~~~
srbby
Hmm interesting. I thought that guy meant the whole group policy system, which
can change settings in user mode programs (such as explorer) and is akin to
/etc files or in the kernel (like the one you mentioned) and is akin to sysctl

~~~
mehrdadn
The entire value of group policy is in the whole thing, not the individual
pieces. The group policy _system_ would be almost useless without the actual
group policies it comes with; the actual policies and their vertical
integration through the kernel and all the way to the UI are what bring in
pretty much all the value. Viewing it as a glorified regedit or dconf-editor
that's basically decoupled from the rest of the OS kind of misses the larger
picture.

------
ecmascript
I use Linux everyday and I don't have Windows installed anymore.

But unlike many I actually like Windows though and used to be heavily invested
as a .NET developer. I switched all that away though just because I didn't
like the ads, forced updates, the cloud integrations and the tracking that
were included in Windows 10 and felt forced.

This is what makes Windows 10 and Windows in general bad. Not the kernel or
the other things in Windows. If Microsoft would start valuing these things
again Windows would be less bad in my opinion.

I just use Linux because it's better, but it's only better right now and that
could change in the future. I don't believe Windows 11 would be better if it
ran Linux if it still had all those privacy-issues. It would be still as
shitty in my view.

I am now heavily invested in Linux and has completely dropped my investment in
the Microsoft-ecosystem. I start all new projects on Gitlab because I am
actually mostly tired of big american companies that track and store
everything and doesn't care about you.

------
replete
Kinda garbage article offering nothing. Is Windows NT kernel really so bad?

~~~
techntoke
Yes, the registry is terrible and Windows applications basically do whatever
they want. Once you install a few applications and then try removing them
you'll end up with a ton of junk left over. Dot files and standard /etc config
files are a blessing. Linux package managers are orders of magnitude faster
than chocolatey, which isn't part of the OS. Windows Updates are notoriously
bad.

~~~
dagw
None of which has anything to do with the kernel.

------
vallismortis
Ok, you're crazy. The GPL licensing issues alone would be a nightmare for
them, and possibly unsolvable from their business perspective.

~~~
felixguendling
Playstation, Mac OS and many others are based on BSD for that reason (and
probably other reasons as well).

I cannot imagine a BSD-based MS Windows but it would be cool!

This would probably solve slow filesystem I/O (which is one of the major pain
points for me when working under Windows, especially if you have a large
number of small files).

However, it's important for Windows to keep backward compatibility for
applications using old APIs. I think that's a major selling point vs. other
platforms.

~~~
Quarr
On the other hand, in my experience WINE runs older Windows apps better than
my modern Windows 10 install does. Most things ~pre-2005 run really well,
especially games which just refuse to boot on modern Windows (or require
compatibility patches).

------
dagw
That article makes no sense. Even if we take it as given that the "Desktop
Windows has had so many problems", none of those problems have anything to do
with the NT kernel. Swapping one kernel for another thus have no effect on the
desktop or any its "problems".

~~~
crispinb
That was my first thought too, but I do wonder about one aspect here. Doesn't
Windows' relatively slow file i/o result largely from the architecture of the
kernel-mode I/O subsystem? That's the impression I got from reading up on the
issues Microsoft was having trying to speed up WSL (and hence, in part, the
move to WSL2).

Having said that, slow file i/o probably wouldn't rank that high in the
average user's list of Windows issues.

------
kstenerud
The layers of the os are a lot more tightly coupled than meets the eye. This
would be a HUGE effort with the result of keeping the status quo. Not a smart
investment. It would be far easier to port the various subsystems and grow
communities around them, as they have been doing in recent years. Eventually,
you'll be able to develop any Microsoft tech in Linux or windows, and then
windows will slowly fade into the sunset, as the desktop isn't important
anymore.

------
simonblack
That's not bad.

It's only taken 10 years and more since I suggested on Mini-Microsoft that
Microsoft do 'an Apple' and put a Windows GUI on a Linux foundation just like
Apple had put the Apple GUI on a BSD foundation. I remember that suggestion
being howled down derisively by the Softies.

You can always trust Microsoft to do the smart thing .... after they've
repeatedly wasted years and years and billions of dollars doing the dumb
things.

------
Spare_account
>As it prepares Windows 11, Microsoft has been laying the groundwork for such
a radical release.

Can I read about this anywhere? I didn't realise there will be a Windows 11

~~~
dagw
Microsoft has repeatedly said that there won't be.

------
js3915
The article it explained. And its an obvious pipedream.

Windows has all the API, wine doesn't have the API they reverse-engineered the
compatibility layer.

Since Windows has the code it wouldn't take a lot. Plus a lot of drivers and
what not is already implemented in linux

Biggest probably would be graphics but then again they have the API/code as
they made it so they can easily connect the dots to make it work

------
avyeed_desa
If this really takes shape in some form I'd be interested in the status of
WINE or how they would come up with any form of legacy emulation of older
Windows programs. Right now it seems easier for Microsoft to emulate Linux
programs with WSL or WSL2 than rewriting the Windows Kernel.

------
samsari
This is not a new fantasy, I've heard exactly this same theory mooted several
years ago. It's obviously a very compelling one. Who wouldn't love it if
Microsoft did an Apple and wrote the userspace on top of the Linux kernel?

~~~
dagw
_Who wouldn 't love it if Microsoft did an Apple and wrote the userspace on
top of the Linux kernel?_

But the whole conceit of the article is the Microsoft sucks at userspace.

~~~
samsari
Microsoft sucks at the desktop, but there's more to their userspace than that.
If you want to play the latest games or use a lot of other applications, it's
the only game in town* pretty much.

*Obviously, there's Wine and OSX, but still.

------
b34r
Never gonna happen

------
srbby
Too much fluff but nothing specific. What does it mean for "Windows 11 to run
on Linux"? Port Win32 and DirectX to Linux? Start supporting Wine in some way?

------
29athrowaway
Major distros are shipping with a better desktop experience than Windows right
now, and it has been like that for a while.

If you don't like LibreOffice, try SoftMaker FreeOffice.

~~~
fiala__
> a better desktop experience

I think that's debatable at best. Of course the experience is better because
you don't get in-system ads, forceful cloud integration, and all the bad stuff
that comes with Microsoft.

But my personal experience of Ubuntu is a constant struggle against randomly
occurring bugs, inexplicable performance drops, crashes, and bad design. It's
still worth it because it's Ubuntu, but I wouldn't celebrate the UX too much.

Out of the box, Windows is _orders of magnitude_ easier to use for non-
technical users.

~~~
tannhaeuser
Let me tell you about my latest Windows experience: I asked my son to bring
his gaming notebook (Linux/Windows dual boot setup) so that I could test a
tutorial on Node.js I'm giving next week. Of course, to download stuff I had
to open a hotspot/WLAN access point for him on my phone. 5 mins later I
received an SMS telling me my data was 80% exhausted. I setup the hotspot to
disable his MAC, but then he needed additional downloads and I re-enabled his
MAC so we could complete the tutorial test-run. He disabled automatic software
updates, but 5 min later I received another SMS notifying me that my data plan
was exhausted (all the while the notebook bringing up modals, toasts, and
sounds like a gambling machine in a brothel). In the end it worked, but I
can't understand how people can even work with Windows. The best thing about
modern Windows IMHO is WSL/WSL2 to run Ubuntu. I've been using Linux and Mac
OS exclusively since around 2003 or earlier, and I don't understand at all
what people find hard about it. Installation of Ubuntu is about as easy as it
gets. The most difficult part is deinstalling Windows when it comes
preinstalled. But you can just buy a Dell notebook with Ubuntu LTS
preinstalled for a much better experience unless you want to run games or
legacy Windows apps.

~~~
omegabravo
> In the end it worked, but I can't understand how people can even work with
> Windows

It sounds like you are far more familiar with OS X and Linux than Windows.

> Installation of Ubuntu is about as easy as it gets

I still have tearing issues on my screen from the graphics drivers that I'm
not sure how to fix. Windows has no such issues for me. I know there are
issues with Windows too - they just never seem to occur to me.

While I agree this comparison isn't fair to the hard working developers of
Linux, it illustrates the point that both operating systems are complex. The
more familiar you are, the less problems it seems to have.

