Microsoft announces it's own linux Distro

[DeadEnd]

Obviously they havent, but what if............

Would you use it?,
considering the rescources they could throw at it,would the community welcome them?

It is not an entirely unfeasable proposition IMO in the future what do you think?

[23meg]

It's entirely unfeasable and unlikely. The community wouldn't welcome them. I wouldn't use it. I don't think anyone in their right mind would use it.

[ubuntu27]

My god! You scared me "DeadEnd" ! hahaha. I was like "what!! M$ made a new Linux distro? Does that mean they want to 'clean' the other [eliminate other distro]?

><;

[Stormy Eyes]

It is not an entirely unfeasable proposition IMO in the future what do you think?

I think Microsoft would be more likely to use BSD; its license is friendlier towards proprietary uses; you can use BSD code with no obligation to "give back" as long as you acknowledge that you are using BSD code.

[chimera]

What features would their partition offer that the other don't? The user-friendly blue screen?

[h3xx3r]

Jeez you scared the crap outta me :D
It wouldn't be allowed to happen,if it ever did I couldn't see anyone using it.
Although the friendly BSOD may tempt a few addicts.

Watch the count rise rapidly on this post :) The title will drag them in like a bank giving away free money. :)

[briancurtin]

I think Microsoft would be more likely to use BSD; its license is friendlier towards proprietary uses; you can use BSD code with no obligation to "give back" as long as you acknowledge that you are using BSD code.
microsoft uses, or has used BSD code in the past. i have read about this, but i can't remember the exact details

edit: i remember now, it is the FTP.exe code that uses it. you can read about it in many places, but this distrowatch page (http://distrowatch.rohost.com/dwres.php?resource=review-freebsd) has some info about it if you search for "windows"

[Stormy Eyes]

microsoft uses, or has used BSD code in the past. i have read about this, but i can't remember the exact details

They had Hotmail running on BSD at one point, and I'm pretty sure that they got a fair amount of their TCP/IP code from BSD too.

[earobinson]

I have been told that microsoft has a very large linux lab.

[briancurtin]

I'm pretty sure that they got a fair amount of their TCP/IP code from BSD too.
yeah that is another thing they have borrowed code from

[Bandit]

I think M$ would go bankrup before they would ever directly use linux or linux based software. Now, I would not be supprised if they did and do go the BSD route just like Apple did with OSX. That would make perfect since being that it would cost millions and not to mention years of work for them to develope a NEW kernel from scratch.
If they did use a BSD based system as the back-end they would already have a more secure and stable system for them to throw the windows GUI on top of. This would also keep them in track with there 3-4 year release cycle.
We all know they M$ does have to do something soon. They keep releasing patches for there current OS. They problem is patches only cover holes, they do not repair them. M$ to maintain the lead in the market must do something soon as the general public is starting to realize and get fed up with all the security problems that windows(tm) posses.
Now, would I use it? Hell No... But I think it would be much easier for game makers to make Linux compatable games then and for users to take some DX Dlls from windows to make wine work better. So there would be some benifits.
Linux's stronge point at me momment is security, stability, customability. These benifits come from the software we use being opensource. Letting users to fix many bugs there self. Those three things you will never get in a closed source operating system. Although a *BSD route would be better for Windows, it would still never compair to Linux.
IMHO,
Joey

[Lord Illidan]

I think M$ would go bankrup before they would ever directly use linux or linux based software. Now, I would not be supprised if they did and do go the BSD route just like Apple did with OSX. That would make perfect since being that it would cost millions and not to mention years of work for them to develope a NEW kernel from scratch.
If they did use a BSD based system as the back-end they would already have a more secure and stable system for them to throw the windows GUI on top of. This would also keep them in track with there 3-4 year release cycle.
We all know they M$ does have to do something soon. They keep releasing patches for there current OS. They problem is patches only cover holes, they do not repair them. M$ to maintain the lead in the market must do something soon as the general public is starting to realize and get fed up with all the security problems that windows(tm) posses.
Now, would I use it? Hell No... But I think it would be much easier for game makers to make Linux compatable games then and for users to take some DX Dlls from windows to make wine work better. So there would be some benifits.
Linux's stronge point at me momment is security, stability, customability. These benifits come from the software we use being opensource. Letting users to fix many bugs there self. Those three things you will never get in a closed source operating system. Although a *BSD route would be better for Windows, it would still never compair to Linux.
IMHO,
Joey

Being a profit oriented company, Microsoft would definitely consider using Linux if it was going bankrupt. Unlikely, but it would.

Regards stability & opensource. I am not so sure. Linux itself is stable, but some apps get on my nerves!! Open Office case in point!

[Bandit]

Being a profit oriented company, Microsoft would definitely consider using Linux if it was going bankrupt. Unlikely, but it would.

Regards stability & opensource. I am not so sure. Linux itself is stable, but some apps get on my nerves!! Open Office case in point!
Maybe, but only if Balmer isnt in office anymore.
I still think they would go BSD first..

[Galoot]

You just know that people would flock toward it and then become dependent on their closed-source "improvements." There's no reason why a GPL app can't interact with closed-source code, is there?

[Wolki]

Someone has to mention it: http://www.mslinux.org/


There's no reason why a GPL app can't interact with closed-source code, is there?

Depends on what you mean by "interact". GPL code and code under a license that is not compatible with the GPL may not be distributed linked against another, but of course there's not problem with gpl/non-gpl-compatible software coexisting on the same system.

[Bandit]

"improvements." Not sure that I would use that word in conjuction with closed source.. I find better apts in the open source world more stable.

[mstlyevil]

I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the future. If Microsoft thought there was more money to be made by starting it's own distro, it probally would. As of right now MSFT views Linux as it's greatest threat so I doubt we will see something like this in the near future.

[DigitalDuality]

I dunno, the open source community has yet to put together a great webpublishing suite (Macromedia/Abobe).

And while i love OpenOffice, find it stable, functional.. even has some functionality that MS doesn't.. i still like MS Office better. I just refuse to use it.

[DeadEnd]

" There's no reason why a GPL app can't interact with closed-source code, is there?

Thats what I think, there is nothing stopping them if they so desired.
love em or hate them, they do have an excellent support infrastructure which could generate much return under the GPl as far as my understanding goes.
they would have a major advantage in regards to interopability and still have the luxery of remaining closed source in critical areas.
Far be it for me to point out war like mantras but "know thy enemy" springs to mind and open source does kinda have a disadvantaged playing field . if M$ went to war in this respect.
I Can imagine the slogan
"Winux best of both worlds,supported by the best, developed by the world"

[Lovechild]

If that happens, I will fight it till my dying breath - I don't believe Microsoft has historically behaved in any way indicating that they did not have malicious intent in starting a Linux distribution. I'm sorry, but some people just never redeem themselves and I think Ballmer is one of them - chair throwing maniac that he is.

[Sheinar]

While I think the chances of them creating a Linux distro are about as likely as me growing bunny ears and a tail, they could do some serious damage to the name of Linux. If they released a "Microsoft Linux", while still releasing Windows, if they intentionally made the distro bad, it might put off people wishing to try Linux at all.

[Killashandra]

or not....

I dont know?

[ardchoille]

Obviously they havent, but what if............

Would you use it?,
considering the rescources they could throw at it,would the community welcome them?

It is not an entirely unfeasable proposition IMO in the future what do you think?
With the things M$ has done? With the way they lie, cheat, steal and spread FUD?

Not a chance I would ever use anything they design or distribute.

[super]

guess i'm the only one without morals here, ;)

because if ms made a free, open source linux distro that ran linux apps (gnome, e17, evolution, etc..) and ran ms apps (directx, driver software, etc...) i would most definitely use it.

as a matter of fact, i really don't care who makes my software, as long as it works, and i can use it to do as i please.

of course, this will never happen. :(

[drizek]

What features would their partition offer that the other don't? The user-friendly blue screen?

more importantly, what features would it offer that windows xp doesnt?

[drizek]

guess i'm the only one without morals here, ;)

because if ms made a free, open source linux distro that ran linux apps (gnome, e17, evolution, etc..) and ran ms apps (directx, driver software, etc...) i would most definitely use it.

as a matter of fact, i really don't care who makes my software, as long as it works, and i can use it to do as i please.

of course, this will never happen. :(

its not really about that. they will never make a linux distro with good intentions. they wont do anything with good intentions. they just want to make money, and that is never good for any of us.

[super]

they will never make a linux distro with good intentions. they wont do anything with good intentions.
probably true. but if its free-gratuit software, even if it's not free-libre software then 'what me worry?'


they just want to make money, and that is never good for any of us.
gotta disagree here. food isn't free, and even microsoft employees and employers gotta eat. :p

i see what you're saying tho.

[drizek]

keyword, *JUST*.

you can develop good and honest software and still make money at the same time. If youre into video games, you can really see the difference in quality between games from greedy companies like EA and games from valve/id. newell and carmack are actually devoted to making good games, making good money is an afterthought. EA cares about money and nothing else, and MS is the same way.

[carl13]

From a business perspective, it would make sense for them come out with their own brand of Linux. This type of practice could work in other types of businesses. Basically you are going for both shares of the market. However, most people who use Linux would not use M$'s distro.

Personally, I would welcome M$ scraping what they have and building on a Linux base.

[greenway]

.. they just want to make money, and that is never good for any of us.

This is somewhat of a blunt statement. Whenever you're making money and using this money to develope and improve, I don't see what's wrong with this picture...IMO. Besides, like it or not, the world is runnning on money.

[briancurtin]

or not....

I dont know?
everyone: this is a troll pretending to be me. it is most likely user "AsburyPark". note the spelling of his username, and then mine
please ignore his posts

[super]

If youre into video games, you can really see the difference in quality between games from greedy companies like EA and games from valve/id. newell and carmack are actually devoted to making good games, making good money is an afterthought. EA cares about money and nothing else, and MS is the same way.

heh, heh. :p
funny you should say that because 'need for speed - underground' and 'fifa 2006' are my two of my favorite games.
i guess there's no accounting for some peoples taste eh? :p

@briancurtis
some people have waaay too much time on their hands.

[drizek]

thats only because valve doesnt make sports games ;)

Edit: and do canadians actually use "eh" in normal conversation or is that just an american stereotype? I personally think it sounds kinda cool.

[mstlyevil]

everyone: this is a troll pretending to be me. it is most likely user "AsburyPark". note the spelling of his username, and then mine
please ignore his posts

You should post a new avitar that braindrain can not get. Something personal would work.

[super]

do canadians actually use "eh" in normal conversation or is that just an american stereotype? I personally think it sounds kinda cool.
yup! i'm actually from jamaica, but i picked up the 'eh' thing within 6 months of living here. it's kinda catchy.

on-topic
see. if microsoft made a linux i would be able to play all those ea games i like! and you're right. i really only play sport-sims (ea) or combat games (ubisoft).

[drizek]

if microsoft made an opensourced linux based desktop OS capable of playing windows games, there really would be no reason to use it. it will just be a copy paste job and all of a sudden every linux distro has the ability to play windows games. Thats the reason why they will never create an opensource OS. and if they do make windows linux based, it will still be closed source and it will still be dumbed down. in other words, it will be as worthless as windows is today.