
Could Microsoft release a desktop Linux? - watchdogtimer
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-linux-lindows-could-microsoft-release-a-desktop-linux/
======
geofft
> _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._

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 _has_ 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 _Win32_ binaries work smoothly on Linux, are almost entirely
unrelated problems.

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.

~~~
halbritt
The existence of MSSQL-Linux is proof that Microsoft can get this done. The
story is pretty interesting:

[https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2016/12/16/sql-
se...](https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2016/12/16/sql-server-on-
linux-how-introduction/)

~~~
oaiey
Just that a database server is a very specific thing. Own memory handling, own
file system handling, own scheduling, ... . The core of these systems give a
shit about the operating system.

~~~
kerng
It's even more so true. The complexity of kernel calls is much higher when
custom memory and scheduler involved I'd say. Getting Office running is
probably rather simple in comparison.

~~~
jcelerier
> The complexity of kernel calls is much higher when custom memory and
> scheduler involved I'd say

I really don't think so. MS used to render scrollbars in the kernel (was still
the case in early Win10 versions)

~~~
geofft
I believe TrueType fonts are still rendered in kernel mode. (They have a
policy option for blocking untrusted fonts, because of course that parser has
bugs.)

~~~
ryuuchin
Although the rendering may still be done in kernel mode the parsing is now
done in a usermode sandbox[1] which significantly reduces risks from handling
untrusted fonts.

[1]
[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/secguide/2017/06/15/drop...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/secguide/2017/06/15/dropping-
the-untrusted-font-blocking-setting/)

------
gingerbread-man
Here's a dopey idea: What if Microsoft open-sourced the Windows NT kernel?
(While retaining some proprietary drivers, etc..)

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.

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.

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!"

~~~
sterlind
Amazon and Google are likely to make cloud-ready NT distros, cutting off
Microsoft's last cash lifeline on rival clouds. So it would have significant
costs.

On the other hand, Flash once had API dominance and lost it as they
(fortunately!) abdicated to HTML5. MS is now extremely aware that Win32 isn't
the future - they even cut the OS into pieces and reorg'd NT under us (Azure.)

.NET Core is the way forward for the company. I could totally see us releasing
"NT Core" without the Win32 userland, and WSL, Modern and .NET Core as the
official personalities.

We could even release the shell that way. But it would pull a bunch of
developers away from new scenarios to put onto an ever-shrinking desktop
market.

Most likely we'll just see all new products become cross-platform and the
execs will wait until a new "iPhone moment" comes along to get ahead with
consumer OS.

~~~
pjmlp
Amazon has supported Windows VMs since at least 2010, the first time I did a
Windows cloud based deployment.

So far it hasn't been that interesting for Windows projects.

Regarding the ever-shrinking desktop market, laptops and 2-1 are "desktops" as
well.

Plugging phones into docking stations will never caught on.

~~~
sawantuday
Whats your logic behind that? Current phones with 10gb of ram and 8 cores
already surpass average computers. Its only a matter of right user interface.

~~~
zozbot123
It's not about the hardware (who am I kidding there, of course it is... ARM
SoC's, blech). It's about the _software_ side of the equation. Maybe Purism
can pull this off, but Android definitely can't (and not for lack of trying,
see Samsung DeX), and iOS is going the other way, with macOS getting more iOS-
like over time.

------
crispinb
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.

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.

~~~
sho
I'm in the same boat and have the same thoughts. I'm essentially trapped on
OSX, and have been for a decade - sure, with enough pain and effort I might be
able to kinda-sorta get by on linux, but in practise the barrier is just too
high. And windows has never really even been an option until fairly recently.

I'd love to see real competition in the OS space for people who need both a
decent app ecosystem _and_ open source developer tools.

~~~
crispinb
> I'm essentially trapped on OSX, and have been for a decade

Me too until this May, when it was past time for my aging MB Pro to retire. I
really couldn't justify a new one given I don't even like them any more (the
Touchbar was the coup de grace).

Hence a Dell XPS 15, running Windows 10. I won't pretend the latter is
anywhere near as good as OSX (less stable, less consistent UI, generally lower
quality apps), but it does manage all the hardware well & gets the job done.
WSL makes it livable-with.

I'd prefer linux though for its window manager choices, single-rooted
filesystem, lack of nags & faster file io (among other things).

> I'd love to see real competition in the OS space for people who need both a
> decent app ecosystem and open source developer tools.

Quite.

~~~
zhte415
>I'd prefer linux though for its window manager choices, single-rooted
filesystem, lack of nags & faster file io (among other things).

Why not install Linux, and run Windows under a VM?

Or if locked to the Windows install, run Linux under a VM?

~~~
crispinb
I've never seriously considered working primarily in a VM. For performance
reasons, I suppose, but given how far the VM scene has come, that may well be
an out of date prejudice. Maybe Linux under Windows (it would have to be that
way round) would work. Worth considering, yes.

~~~
vbezhenar
You'll get snapshots with VM. That's awesome. While you could setup them with
Linux (not easy, AFAIK, but doable with some tinkering), for Windows it's a
game changer. You could install anything and just roll back. Don't like that
Windows update? Roll back.

------
simonblack
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.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
Endy
That would have been the end of me using computers, right then and there. An
operating system that updates or upgrades more than about once per decade is
moving entirely too fast. 5 years about the fastest possible rate that even
approaches being reasonable. The fact that Windows has always bent over
backwards to provide backward compatibility would be totally invalidated by
shifting toward Linux. I run a bunch of DOS programs in Win 7 still, without
needing to go through DOSBox, and that's not counting my collection of 3.1 and
9x programs which I actively use.

So yes, giving up entirely on the good things that Windows does without
respect to the GUI and accepting the practices of Linux/Unix devs who have
little or no respect for the past would be nothing short of a catastrophic
mistake. Your idea would likely have killed computing forever, in my view,
especially enterprise or professional-use computing, and within the first two
rapid releases that broke necessary functions. It's the so-called 'Softies'
who keep the world running and effective for normal people who don't want to
have to figure out how to compile a program just to turn on their computer and
do the things they need.

And it would have killed home use as well - we don't need network workstations
at home with limited control, we need computers that we have full control
over, all the time.

~~~
vlovich123
And then you have iOS, OSX, ChromeOS, & Android that both upgrade annually.
I'm sure you'll be happy with Windows 10 though considering it's the last
official Window release. Really it's not though; it's just rolling releases in
the background.

I'm afraid you have to realize you're in the tail end of the tech adoption
cycle[1], either in the late majority or bordering on laggard.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter)

~~~
Endy
I am quite proudly a lag-behind when it comes to tech within the last decade.
The rest of you can go on ahead and suffer all the horrible bugs that would
have been found in QA testing, if the testers had been given adequate time and
resources. I'll happily arrive after you're done and use the finished product.

Also, I've never updated Android OS on a device - every phone and/or tablet I
have, has the version of Android it shipped with; whatever that might be. The
same goes for iOS, mostly. My old iPad, I knew better than to update the OS.
The newer one, I've made the big mistake of upgrading to iOS 12. I'm sorely
tempted at the moment to make a list of programs on the device and reset it to
get it back to decency.

My feeling is, people are allowing the tech companies to release buggy
software, they're still buying it, they're still paying for hardware using it
and supporting bug-ridden versions. We need to shift the mainstream - and the
business world - back to demanding software that works and keeps on working
reliably for the life of the business.

~~~
suby
Are you not getting Android or iOS security updates, then?

~~~
Endy
What's a security update? I don't expect them to be responsible for my
security - that's my burden as the user to make sure that I'm using software
and files I personally trust.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
That seems a pretty illogical position, it relies on developers being perfect
at security. It doesn't matter how much you trust someone you must realise
that people are fallible; that, in context, means that hardware and software
will have [security] bugs/feature oversights.

If/When you discover a bug, and the developer has a fix out as a security
update -- eg heartbleed -- then would you really not update because you
trusted that developer before. Surely that they've issued a patch that they
suggest to apply means, if you trust them, that you should apply the patch?

------
jchw
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.

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.

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!?

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.

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.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
Wine is a lot different from virtualization. It’s likely if Microsoft did
release a Windows compatible Linux (or some micro kernel thing) they would
virtualize the SxS assemblies and kernel for each application to help with
security and compatibility.

They gave a demo called MinWin years ago that more or less did the same thing.

~~~
jchw
That would be a very neat approach. I had not heard of MinWin until today and
now I'm pretty curious exactly what it entails and what the implications of it
are.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
It’s actually difficult to piece together what MinWin was exactly. Some
sources say it used virtualization, other source say it was an extremely
limited NT kernel. I suspect it was a little of both.

------
cwyers
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?

~~~
Zardoz84
WSL is a slow joke compared against native GNU/Linux. Also, you missed that
WSL don't support GUI apps. However the inverse, Wine, works very well and
sometimes it's faster that native Windows

~~~
aasasd
Just a passing note, if WSL can run programs with GUI libs, those programs
likely can draw to a Windows-native graphical server. (I've briefly used this
technique with CoLinux the userspace-Linux-for-Windows).

------
marsrover
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.

And the funny thing is it is probably less work than maintaining their current
solution.

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.

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.

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.

------
overgard
I see a lot of “why not” but no actual “why”. Microsoft loses strategic
platform control and gains: ...

 _crickets_

~~~
qwerty456127
> but no actual “why”

Because in every other aspect but the very kernel (and the UI perhaps) Windows
is a disaster. Windows Update especially.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
So how does replacing the kernel help with that?

~~~
qwerty456127
It doesn't. Replacing the kernel doesn't but deprecating the entire OS and
switching to GNU/Linux + Wine (which means MS would start contributing to
Wine) does. If this happens we can get heavily improved Wine + vendors like
Adobe releasing Linux-native versions of their apps.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I still don't get it. There's nothing wrong with the kernel, the crap is stuff
that they've put on top of the kernel just like it is in Linux. You're giving
up the best part of the OS and replacing the worst part with a compatibility
layer, why not keep the NT kernel and use a compatibility layer? Since MS has
all the code and it wouldn't have to be open source, that'd be much easier.

~~~
qwerty456127
> just like it is in Linux.

Quite the opposite: the only thing that is (hell arguable, of course) wrong
with Linux is its kernel architecture.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I could not possibly disagree more strongly. Linux's kernel has some problems
but it is mostly ok. Userspace is where everything has gone horribly horribly
wrong in Linux.

~~~
qwerty456127
E.g. what? As for the kernel I personally dislike the the Linux kernel-driver
separation model (I believe these should better be made more separate, like in
Windows) but other people (kernel hackers probably) have mentioned the VMS
genes in the NT kernel make it in interesting in more ways. But what's wrong
with the GNU/Linux userspace? I can't name a single problem with it.

------
gcbw2
No. They just plan to use developer tools (chrome based browser + vstudio) to
push their one-push-publish-to-cloud.

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.)

~~~
jrs95
I don't think this is happening, Visual Studio is basically a legacy product
at this point. Still developed and maintained, but not a major focus for MS,
and they want to push Azure adoption as much as possible so I don't think
we'll see IDE lock in like you're talking about.

~~~
gcbw2
What do you mean? VS is literally the only Microsoft product that shows up
here on HN every other week!

------
rbanffy
They could even use WSL to put Linux on top of the NT kernel. It'd be called
Microsoft GNU/Windows.

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.

~~~
h1d
Is WSL that complete?

There could be tons of edge cases where stock Linux binaries could behave
slightly differently and could be a support nightmare.

~~~
AaronFriel
I regularly develop Haskell, Rust, Node, etc. on WSL. It's dramatically
improved since the early days, and that was already pretty magical.

I find it funny you mention "stock Linux binaries", the distributions that are
available on top of WSL are stock Linux distributions. Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE,
etc. There aren't any _non_ stock Linux binaries involved.

------
titanix2
What interest would such a switch brings on the table? I can't see any, except
reducing diversity in the computer landscape.

------
paxys
The most realistic path to this would be them buying Canonical. I doubt they
are going to roll their own distro from scratch.

~~~
h1d
If 2 of the biggest Linux distributors get owned by giants with their
intention of trying to save themselves than save the market is going to be a
bad ride.

What other commercially supported option do we have for those concerned?

~~~
Vogtinator
SUSE?

------
crimsonalucard
Let us not forget that like GNU Linux, Windows is actually a really good
operating system.

------
rmason
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.

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.

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.

~~~
danieldk
_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._

Why would you think they would do this? NT is the architecturally more modern
kernel. People should read up on the history of the NT kernel [1]. And if they
should do this for non-technical reasons, I think it is more likely that they
go for some permissively-licensed kernel (e.g. FreeBSD) to avoid the GPL.

In the end, Microsoft did exactly the opposite: make it possible to run Linux
binaries on Windows. Windows Subsystem for Linux is a testament to the
strengths of the NT kernel. NT supports multiple 'personalities' and Win32 is
just one personality, the Linux ABI is another personality. One could say that
the Linux ABI is almost as native to the core NT kernel as the Win32 ABI is.

At any rate, I think that the Windows desktop is getting less and less
important to them. So rather than going through the massive work of porting
Window on top of the Linux kernel, I think it is more likely that they put
Windows in maintenance mode and make/fork something along the lines of
ChromeOS or Android for client systems.

(Disclaimer: I haven't seriously used Windows since Windows 3.1. It just
bothers me when people misrepresent Windows or the NT kernel.)

[1] [https://www.itprotoday.com/compute-engines/windows-nt-and-
vm...](https://www.itprotoday.com/compute-engines/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-
story)

------
jaclaz
Only for the record, "Lindows" actually existed, it was the name
(retired/changed because MS didn't like it [0]) of Linspire [1]:

[https://www.linspirelinux.com/](https://www.linspirelinux.com/)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire)

------
karmasimida
Can't see it happen. Desktop Linux has no meaningful user base, with or
without MSFT.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Well, Steam [1] is probably a good measure of "desktop" as it's usually home
users that install on their personal computers?

So, by that measure Linux has ¼ of the users of MacOS.

The significance of that for you is not my call though.

Steam's top seller in 2017 was PUBG at $600 Million, so assuming equal spread
of revenue that 0.8% represents $4.8M you're leaving on the table. With less
competition on Linux then there's possibly a higher revenue to be gained there
for AAA titles? It might be worth risking a bit of dicking around with
Proton/WINE to get your game working for a few extra mega-dollars?

NetMarketShare.com gives similar ratios for Linux : Mac on desktop, giving
Linux 2% of desktop/laptop installs.

[1]
[https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey)

[2] [https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-
gen...](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-
record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017)

[3] [https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-
share...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx)

~~~
karmasimida
> assuming equal spread of revenue.

But I would assume the cost it is not. With your PUBG example, it was known
for bad optimization and vulnerability for hacking from the beginning. The
developer could optimize for Windows and benefit 96% or more of their
customers, while it is hard to justify do the same for the 0.8% user base
while the spending is probably the same. So no, I don't think $4.8M is easy
money.

And for smaller, even moderate successful titles, Linux version makes even
less sense.

------
ngcc_hk
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.

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.

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 ...

Hence the question is not about whether it can but how.

It is all business to Microsoft and google. A bit different on apple side in
the past ...

That is why we should be worry. The old embrace, extend and extinct is logical
path for all business and empire.

Anyway, they are moving and get that here and there like github. But would
they worry as a buisness about java and android model.

Let us see.

------
thomasdd
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.

------
h1d
If it happens, it would be the most jaw dropping event of the decade.

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.

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?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Could Microsoft stop actively developing Windows, only provide security
updates and whatever else is necessary?

~~~
h1d
People might actually like it when things don't change.

------
andmarios
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.

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.

I'm not saying you should use Linux, but you should ask for better Windows.

------
dmos62
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.

[0] [https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=425](https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=425)

------
solatic
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.

------
kgc
They could. However, if they did, they would need to open source everything
they ship with it, if I remember the GPL correctly.

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.

~~~
fourthark
No, by the most common interpretation, apps don't need to be GPL'd, because
they are not linked to the OS.

This is what makes Android possible.

------
fetbaffe
Microsoft will then have two OS flavors to maintain. How is that saving any
money?

This article is nonsense.

------
new_guy
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)

------
purplezooey
They should bring back Xenix and make a desktop version, BSD-like (even though
it's a sysV base) and open source. That would be cool.

------
alexkavon
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 ^)?

------
techsin101
If I was Microsoft I'd rewrite windows on top of Linux but keep API for apps
the same before it's too late

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.

------
hardlianotion
Cool. Linux++

------
icantrank
Lindows

------
revskill
Hell no, please don't bring Windows Virus to Linux :(

------
mbrumlow
No. They will buy Ubuntu.

------
craftinator
What to do when the OS you sell is junk.... Sell somebody else's OS!

------
JustSomeNobody
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.

Think about it. The year of Linux on the desktop brought to you by Microsoft.

~~~
Ari_Ugwu
They should buy elementary OS.

System_76 borrowed heavily from elementary OS to create Pop_Os which is a
dream. Now that I'm saying it I hope they just swallow a little pride and
become a major contributor to Pop_Os.

Every devops and net admin I know would wiggle with joy to be issued a Dell
XPS 15 + Pop_Os tuned with PowerShell and other MS tool chains fully
supported.

~~~
suby
Pop os is just Ubuntu (gnome 3) with a different theme.

~~~
Ari_Ugwu
People say this but I've tried many times to add themes, make tweaks etc. Can
we give some 'distro' makers a little credit? I couldn't make Pop_Os if you
gave me 10 years....I know cause I've been trying for 15.

