
Both Windows 10 and Chrome OS are embracing the Linux kernel - indigodaddy
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3394680/how-windows-and-chrome-quietly-made-2019-the-year-of-linux-on-the-desktop.html
======
overgard
Maybe technologically, but not so much in spirit. The idea of "the year of the
linux desktop", as I understand it, is that people en-mass get the benefits of
free software and the free software desktop is a viable replacement for
windows/macos.

In this case, though, people are still using their same proprietary
software... they just have slightly easier access to the free software world.
That's certainly a benefit for a lot of people, but it's possibly a detriment
to desktop linux for this reason: Other than freedom/privacy reasons, why
would I switch from windows if I can already run most of the linux stack in it
and not give up Adobe programs, games, etc.? This removes most of the
pragmatic reasons for switching, so I'm mostly left with idealistic ones.

~~~
kpU8efre7r
I think the impractical goal of free software at any cost has hurt Linux. It's
radical and it's a type of gatekeeping around here. There is always a post
about Linux tech / adoption that deserves praise and some Stallman acolyte
will chime in to remind us it's not a real accomplishment.

This is turning into a rant but has anyone checked out the approved distros on
FSF? Many popular distros do not make the cut not because they include nonfree
software but make it a little too easy to acquire nonfree software.

~~~
syshum
I am sure you will consider me a "Stallman acolyte" even though i am not

Having said that, I think the compromises the "Open Source" community has
given to commercial companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Oracle have
done much much much more harm to the community and goals than " Stallman
acolytes" ever have.

Nor do i believe the goals of Free Software were impractical and as we move
into a more connected world where privacy, censorship, and security are more
important than ever due to automation, IoT and the normalization of technology
the fact that more or less 4 corporations control the underlying fabric of
that technology to the point were even the "open standards" are bought and
paid for by them should be terrifying to everyone.

Of course I am just fear mongering Stallman acolyte right....

~~~
_red
>"Open Source" community has given to commercial companies like Microsoft,
Apple, Google, and Oracle

What are some examples of these 'compromises'. From what I have seen, all
these companies publish source code and abide by copyright law for any open-
source code they use in their products.

Or are you simply against the principle of for-profit companies making money
from open-source?

~~~
syshum
Open Source vs Free Software is very simple

The Open Source community only cares about the Source Code, they are generally
developer centrist, and generally work with "open sourcing" tools, libraries,
languages and components used to build applications.

Looks on github's open source projects, what is the ratio of Full
Applications, compared to libraries, tools, and components? Probably over 100
libraries, tools, and components for every 1 application

Open Source community has become a purely developer community that does not
give 2 shits about the freedom of users or consumers. Most of the devs in open
source today are building SaaS, PaaS and IaaS services that are closed source
or non-source distributed "open source" services meaning that is perfectly
legal to incorporate open source in to a SaaS product and not release the
source code.

Free Software however believe all users of the software have a equal right to
the source code as the developers. The recent Nest development of them closing
their API is a clear example of the difference, if it was a Free Software
based API I would have the ability to run my own Nest API server, but while
Nest uses many open source libraries the service itself is Closed Source.

That is main compromise and divergence that happened between Free Software and
Open Source.

As to making money off Free Software, I have no problems with that, it is not
part of this issue. Open Source advocates like to bring that up as a red
herring to divert the conversation from the primary debate. Often claiming
that if they can not close their final product "they can not make any money"
as an excuse why they do not support Free (Libre) software

~~~
_red
>The recent Nest development of them closing their API is a clear example of
the difference, if it was a Free Software based API I would have the ability
to run my own Nest API server.

What changes in GPL / FSF licensing would enforce the changes that you want to
achieve?

~~~
DenseComet
There is no change in licensing that could achieve those changes. Companies
will just use other software/rewrite the libraries, and blacklist the license.

[https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-
policy/](https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/)

------
kumarvvr
I don't think this is a good thing at all.

The more Microsoft embraces Linux and makes it work seamlessly in Windows, the
more developers are wont to use Windows, rather than Linux as their primary
OS.

If not all, this will at-least chip away a good portion of existing developers
and most importantly, upcoming developers.

This might lead to Linux being relegated to the background, permanently
killing the Linux on Desktop dream.

~~~
writepub
This is indeed likely if windows GUI is significantly more stable, reliable
and polished than the Linux GUI, and related GUI apps.

What I'm saying is - for Linux desktop to pose any real threat to windows, it
needs to ship a GUI/Desktop comparable in quality, stability, app and driver
ecosystem that rivals windows. That ship sailed 20 years ago, when
philosophical infighting trumped user empathy.

------
pcr910303
Looks like everyone dislikes the fact that Linux is only popular on an `non-
free' Operating System;

But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people
who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the
big deal.

It's something like Emacs for Windows and Emacs for macOS, allowing gcc
running on other (non-free) platforms, because they show other people how free
software `tastes'.

Additionally, this makes Microsoft directly benefit from the Linux kernel and
the software ecosystem; which will motivate Microsoft to invest resources on
Linux.

~~~
ekianjo
> But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people
> who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's
> the big deal.

The problem is that it does nothing to ensure the viability of Linux as a
Desktop alternative. The more people will feel at home "in Windows" even to
develop Linux headless applications, the less incentive there will be to run
Linux Desktop. It might very well end up being a net negative in terms of
alternatives for the end user.

~~~
pcr910303
What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly
Free Software?

If you run a (free) Linux kernel and (free) Linux software, why can't that be
considered as Linux Desktop?

What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel?

Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm?

~~~
ryukafalz
They're not just running side-by-side though; the Linux kernel is virtualized,
with Windows being the ultimate authority. WSL gives you a little box of
software freedom, but outside that box the usual rules apply: you're not
allowed to look and you're certainly not allowed to change how it works. And
Windows can collect whatever telemetry it wants on the running Linux instance,
if MS chooses to do so.

------
mimixco
I predict that MS will be the ones to finally bring about a Linux desktop with
mass market adoption. They'll do it by making it look like Windows, act like
Windows, work with Windows files, and run Windows apps through emulation or
virtualization.

It's pretty brilliant, really, because it solves both problems: the user
doesn't have to change anything and the IT department gets the open source
foundation they want.

~~~
newnewpdro
Shipping a Linux compatibility layer in the form of an integrated Linux
virtual machine does not in any way equate bringing about a Linux desktop to
the masses.

It's shipping a Windows desktop that has a convenient way to do *NIX-style
things, largely for developers who are leaving MS for Apple.

It also takes away from the Linux community and future support for desktop
hardware on Linux. This is hurting Linux, not helping.

~~~
mimixco
It's the first step. No one has successfully deployed a Linux desktop to the
mass market and I've outlined how MS could. And I think they will. It's
actually a Very Good Thing for Linux because it cements its position as the
underlying operating system -- something which is now required by enterprise
IT.

As I said, this will result in _more_ desktops running Linux, not fewer. I've
never been a big MS fan but I have to say this is quite smart and will very
likely be hugely successful.

~~~
newnewpdro
This is going to kill Linux's long-term ability to run directly on consumer
hardware if it becomes the primary way people access a Linux userspace.

Without users running Linux on current consumer hardware, its support to do so
will atrophy.

What MS is doing is the inverse of what's best for the users. We should be
running the Libre kernel+drivers directly on the metal, if you need Windows
run that in a VM.

------
smartmic
Having a containerized Linux inside a non-free box provided by shareholder
driven corporations is far away from the ideals and benefits I associate with
GNU/Linux and FOSS. I know, this view may be too idealistic but I still feel
it is not the right direction.

~~~
tracker1
Now people who would otherwise be stuck writing windows-only systems have the
option to use, develop against and deploy Linux based applications. I'd call
that a win. More linux apps developed and migrated away from Windows-only,
means Linux is a more viable option moving forward. Not all legacy software
will be replaced/displaced or outright changed overnight.

The all or nothing approach does everyone a disservice. Also, Linux WMs are
not nearly as good as Windows or Mac although some are close.

------
tootie
I'm a big fan of WSL and ChromeOS but how come nobody talks about the runaway
success of OSS Unix on the desktop? That is by far the most successful at this
point.

~~~
fxfan
runaway success of oss Linux on the desktop? I'm a full time user but I can't
tell you how much I hate he constant hardware issues. it's 2019 and I cannot
hibernate or sleep my laptop reliably. the backlight doesn't work without
fiddling with kernel Params.

~~~
syshum
I manage a crap ton of windows systems... First thing i do is disable
Hibernate on all of them. It does not work very well on windows either. So
that is not a linux thing. Hibernate should simply not be a power state.

Nor should sleep in IMO but I do keep that on in windows.. On and Off should
be the 2 power states. People just putting their windows computers to sleep
for months on end causes all kinds of weird shit to happen in windows

>but I can't tell you how much I hate he constant hardware issues

And you believe windows works perfectly on all hardware? I select my personal
computers based on Linux hardware support and I have zero issues. Windows has
all kind of wierd driver issues, random shit that happens with some hardware.

Every issue you can come up with that linux has a problem around, i can find
the same problem in windows. Welcome to General Computing

~~~
tracker1
I will suggest that Windows has far fewer problems... and while my next
desktop (months away) will likely be Linux, it is definitely not nearly as
friendly as either Windows or Mac for _most_ users.

Of course, if you don't manage your own computer and mostly run out of a
browser, it doesn't matter nearly as much. It's significantly better today
than a decade, or even 2 years ago. About every 2-3 years, I've run Linux as
my main OS for anywhere from a month to I think 4 months being the longest.
It's not stuck because invariably I hit a sticking point that just gets me to
say "fuck it." Running a hackintosh for all its' faults is generally easier
than running Linux as a desktop OS, which is a really sad statement.

It's not that Windows doesn't have problems, it's that it has them a lot less
frequently. I say this as someone who prefers to develop against Linux (mostly
web ui and server backend, etc). I absolutely hate the frustrating windows-
isms in Git bash. I find the WSL 1.x isn't sufficient, and the lack of
properly performing volume mounts in Docker for Windows very frustrating to
say the least.

I, frankly, welcome a more transparent/fast/effective/complete option for
linux software development in windows. What has come so far has allowed me to
push it as an option moving forward that wouldn't otherwise be there.

------
ekianjo
> Get this: Chromebooks also support Android apps, as Google’s mobile
> operating system is also built on Linux. Which means that developers could
> run software from three different operating systems at the same time on a
> Chromebook.

No, two only. ChromeOS runs on the Linux kernel and the rest was merely a thin
web client. ChromeOS apps are simply offline web applications.

~~~
kyrra
Crostini is The Linux subsystem/container for chrome OS. They have put a very
large amount of effort to making this work well (mainly around security so
Linux apps can't break the security guarantees that chrome OS provides). They
are working exposing USB to it, could aid in Android development.

[https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/c...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/containers_and_vms.md)

[https://betanews.com/2019/04/13/usb-support-linux-apps-
chrom...](https://betanews.com/2019/04/13/usb-support-linux-apps-chrome-os/)

~~~
tracker1
I'd love to see ChromiumOS expanded into a much larger general Linux
platform... it has the best chance of a real Linux Desktop environment for the
masses. I don't know that it will ever really happen though.

Canonical could certainly move in that direction for their chosen window
manager and ui shell.

------
ape4
It might unify development more. Now all developers (Linux, Windows, Chrome,
Mac) have access to the same command line tools.

------
naveen99
The remaining things I wait for on windows: built in gpu pass through from
windows to linux and enabling wsl on enterprise licenses by default.

------
tyingq
I'm curious what the timeframe is for Fuschia to displace Linux in Android,
and then maybe ChromeOS.

~~~
The_rationalist
Lel zircon will never replace Linux, Google is acting retarded here, they have
not the ressources to make zircon competitive with Linux.

------
swedish_mafia
Will Microsoft "Linux kernel" devs influence Linux roadmap?

~~~
jononor
Linux never really had a traditional roadmap, it just is the sum of all
contributions, mediated by what subsystem maintainers and Linus will accept
for merging. So sure, Microsoft devs will influence Linux development just
like the other big contributors. Google, Oracle, RedHat, Intel, et.c.

------
gprasanth
Just tried getting docker with wsl + Ubuntu to work on windows 10 yesterday,
and it was a horrible, horrible experience.

Couldn't get it to work in the end.

Made me realise how peaceful macOS with brew really is.

Even getting zsh to work with hyper properly was super painful. If you ask me
Linux on windows is not usable yet.

Checkback in an year?

~~~
tracker1
WSL2 should be available soon and will be a better experience... I've just
been running Docker for Windows and using the bash that comes with Git for
Windows. It is _not_ great, but the best option(s) I've used so far.

edit: current Docker for Windows does not use _REAL_ volume mounts, don't use
it for any live databases in containers, it's good enough for a backup target
volume, but live data is too fidgety.

