Unfortunately another of their strength lies in the 3rd part: "extinguish". It's only a matter of time before their recent software of WSL, GitHub and Android on Windows becomes yet another walled garden.
I think this is really unlikely. PC gaming is an increasingly important market for Windows in the consumer space. As more casual users abandon conventional PCs for increasingly capable tablets and smartphones, PC gaming is only becoming and even bigger piece of the pie.
The day Microsoft announces that the next version of Windows will be wholly incompatible with player's existing libraries is the day Windows ceases to be relevant to this market. Suddenly, Wine and Proton on Linux go from being "pretty good, but real Windows works better" to being the best option by a mile.
And this is without mentioning how important legacy support is to enterprise customers. A whole lot of the jank and inconsistent UI designs present in Windows 11 is there because enterprise customers still use old software that relies on old features and APIs.
Well, I'm crossing my fingers the Valve Steam Deck satisfies my PC gaming needs (probably not though). I hate Hate HATE that more and more games are wanting to install System level services. It's absolutely not acceptable for the same machine my financial info and other sensative info is on has apps digging deep into the system.
I could run 2 machines but that's also a PITA, maintaining both machines and trying to decide when to use one vs the other. A gaming machine is powerful but I also need that power for video editing and other things. 2 VR rigs, one for non-gaming, one for gaming, would also suck. etc....
I want Windows to lockdown like Mac (and sure, you can turn it off?) but I'd like apps not to be able to muck with the system. Games have no excuse IMO.
The ace in the hole is TPM. What happens when Microsoft starts shipping a TPM based anticheat and DRM? That would destroy Proton forever and allow them to lockdown Windows.
How? They've recently bought a ton of gaming IPs, including Bethesda and id, to add to their existing sizable portfolio including some big names like Halo, Forza, Flight Sim, Minecraft, Gears. They seem to have a pretty solid agreement with EA to offer their EA Play service as a part of GamePass Ultimate, allowing access to a sizeable portion of that library for no additional cost to PC and console gamers. They're starting to push hard into Xbox-as-a-service and focusing efforts equally between PC and console, adding the xCloud "Game Everywhere On Everything!" hook.
People seem to forget that Microsoft is the second most valuable tech company in the world behind Apple. Unless some incredible monstrous change or disaster happens to/within the company, they're not going anywhere for a long time.
I find that the argument embedded in that question isn't very insightful.
The developments of personal computing since subscription applications became prevalent and app stores were integrated into operating systems has made things quite different from the era that preceded this one.
Apple used to sell OS upgrades. Today you can basically run Windows 10 for free. The revenue streams are different these days and they have plenty of incentives to turn your OS into a mall.
Windows has essentially always been free. There have been something like two billion PCs sold running Windows. The number of people who purchased a non-OEM copy is relatively small.
Free as in price? The price tag to customers didn't exactly mention the Windows fee, but the very few vendors that sold PC's without Windows pre-installed had a lower price on those options. Luckily many vendors seem to have concluded that Windows is not a sales argument anymore.
Free as in freedom? MS has tried to block out Linux from beeing installed through various chips and methods.
But I believe upgrades have always been an extra purchase until Windows 8? Nowadays it's free OS, free upgrades to get you in the door and buy their services (M365 for Microsoft, iCloud/apps for Apple.)
Until Windows 10 IIRC, Windows 8 was also a paid upgrade. Windows 8.1 acted like a service pack so it wasn't until 10 that upgrades became free, in a way. (Unless you're an enterprise customer, in which case 10 wasn't free either)
> So you're saying it's only a matter of time before Windows, which is 35 years old, might become a walled garden?
Yes - Microsoft had credible plans to wall-off app installation via an iOS-stye app store. Valve considered this threat to be viable enough, they developed SteamOS and promoted Steam Machines.
Since then, Microsoft has continued its cryptographic crusade to plug all avenues for loading software that's not Microsoft-approved from pre-boot, right up to the userland. Currently, Microsoft already have a turnkey walled garden
I think that is a matter of perspective. Operating systems wholly reliant on package managers are arguably walled gardens, since acquiring and running software that only exists outside the official repos can be a hassle.
But I don't think most people mean either of these things when they say "walled garden". They are referring to ecosystems where the user's only choice for installing apps is an app store owned and maintained by the OS vendor.
Which is precisely what makes it not a walled garden: you can just, you know, put whatever software you want on it. That's the expected way to acquire software on Windows.
No it isn't. You can still install and even build packages using the manifest separately. It is just convenience, but doesn't prevent you from installing them yourself.
Prevent, no. However making your promoted paradigm of software installation rely on repos and package maintainers has lead to practices that make it unlikely that you will find any given piece of software in a form you can just drop onto your system and have it run. If you're really lucky there's a static version or an AppImage, if you're unlucky you're pulling down a docker container of someone's build environment and compiling it yourself, if you're really unlucky you have to do without the docker container.
That is on software developers, many of which refuse to package their software. There are Snaps, Appimages, Flatpaks, etc. Free software isn't like Windows where developers are always packaging their software. Package managers don't impact this whatsoever, and what you're basically complaining about is that unpaid contributors make something easier for people that they wouldn't otherwise be able to easily do without them.
I'm complaining that the community's reliance on package management has set the expectation that unpaid contributors make software work on the platform.
The embracing and extending here was "that's a nice idea, we'll re-write that from scratch and use the Microsoft Store as a GUI for it", which doesn't seem like the same thing to me at all.
WSL I struggle to see how WSL could ever be a walled garden. THe only reason it exists is because server infra (including a bunch of Azure!) runs linux, and loads of development workflows are linux-only.
The moment you add something "windows specific" to Linux you prevent it from actually being used because then you can't deploy it.
I really don't see how their Android app support or WSL could realistically go from extend to extinguish.
I don't think Microsoft's MO is to completely dominate your entire stack anymore. They just want to make sure they form some critical piece of it so you can't get rid of them.
If Microsoft extends their Android implementation to provide new features before Android itself does, and these features become popular, then all Microsoft would have to do is start putting out their own "Android" phones to begin eating the market.
WSL, I'll admit, will be trickier to convert. However, they have decades of experience at this so don't put it past them to figure it out.
Given Microsoft is using/embracing Amazon's replacements for "Google Play Services" isn't the threat here more that Amazon might finally extend Android after a decade of trying and failing?
(Whether or not you agree that "Google Play Services" is already that EEE play, the incumbent, seemingly not going anywhere, and Microsoft/Amazon are playing underdog in this game.)
How does "someone can install Linux in a VM on Windows"[1] translate into "ajvs won't be able to use Linux anymore"? I don't see how you can make such a claim with a straight face.
Am I misreading? It looks like they ported the DirectX runtime to Linux under GPL 2.
>> "This is the real and full D3D12 API, no imitations, pretender or reimplementation here… this is the real deal. libd3d12.so is compiled from the same source code as d3d12.dll on Windows but for a Linux target. It offers the same level of functionality and performance (minus virtualization overhead). The only exception is Present(). There is currently no presentation integration with WSL as WSL is a console only experience today. The D3D12 API can be used for offscreen rendering and compute, but there is no swapchain support to copy pixels directly to the screen (yet )."
1. Their kernel implementation is effectively just a paravirtualized proxy to the Windows DX API. So it won't be useful for bare metal users.
2. Only the kernel driver is open source (and presumably that is only thanks to the GPL). The user-mode library is a proprietary component shipped with Windows. I assume this is also DRMed to only work on top of Hyper-V/WSL2, just like many of their VSCode extensions deliberately block usage with unbranded builds (see also: AARD code[1], this isn't exactly new for them).
I agree, it's a good-faith effort on Microsoft's part. I think people have a hard time believing they can operate in a non-adversarial way (which is understandable if you lived through the 90s lol)
3. Linux technically stays an option but is unable to run apps without NT underneath, and nobody writes plain Linux apps because of market effects
Weak because people could still write apps for just Linux, plausible because convincing people to divert effort to the MS way would work and is classic EEE.
No one in their right mind would right linux apps targeted to run WSL only. Even if they do, it would never capture the market of pure linux. Also any modifications done to linux should be GPLd hence i don’t think thats a problem either.
Your use of "extinguish" describes a situation where you can use exactly what you have now, in exactly the way you're doing now? And the terrible thing which "extinguish" means to you is "future people who might have given me free stuff might not, and it will be Microsoft's fault"? And not only that, but the way MS will "convince people to divert effort" is by making something people want more? And that is somehow terribly unfair?
The current world is that there are programs written for Linux distributions with certain subsystems (audio, window manager, systemd, etc) which don't work on other distributions without those subsystems. People who ignore binary blob video card drivers, etc. A Microsoft Ubuntu with DirectX that only runs in WSL would be just another thing like that. It would be practically no different to "macOS is UNIX but you can't run all macOS programs on other Unixes" which hasn't extinguished Linux or Unix.
Even moreso when people who want to write for DirectX can do so for Windows. Why would those people target DirectX on Linux which only runs on WSL? And if it doesn't only run on WSL, let's say DirectX on Linux works on any Ubuntu and Valve use it for Steam and gaming on Linux becomes massively popular by targetting DirectX for video ... how do you then connect to "nobody writes plain Linux apps because 3D games are an option" and from there to "and now despite being massively more popular, Linux is extinguished and this is bad because even though I can run literally any other distribution and write and run my own software and all previous software, I can no longer be bothered to and that's both bad and Microsoft's fault"?
