View Full Version : If MS made a linux version that ran Windows programs natively
sdowney717
February 12th, 2013, 08:45 PM
Would it sell better than what they offer today?
iamkuriouspurpleoranj
February 12th, 2013, 09:02 PM
Would it sell better than what they offer today?
They couldn't use Linux without putting the whole thing under the GPL, rendering its advantage useless.
I suppose they could in theory do an Android or a Cisco IOS-XE and base their own operating system around the Linux kernel.
MadmanRB
February 12th, 2013, 09:22 PM
Maybe, or at least based off some unix varient.
I mean they are already halfway there with Windows NT based OS's.
Especially Windows 7 that has a very unix like feel to it (in both performance and file structure, 7 is very solid and I do like it.)
deadflowr
February 12th, 2013, 09:31 PM
Do you mean something like a Microsoft built wine?
Wine with all the windows needed components built in and fully usable for all windows programs, with complete support by Microsoft.
VeeDubb
February 12th, 2013, 09:39 PM
Do you mean something like a Microsoft built wine?
Wine with all the windows needed components built in and fully usable for all windows programs, with complete support by Microsoft.
Now that, I must admit, would probably be an excellent product. They would also be able to keep most or all of their code proprietary if they started up from scratch.
deadflowr
February 12th, 2013, 09:45 PM
Now that, I must admit, would probably be an excellent product. They would also be able to keep most or all of their code proprietary if they started up from scratch.
It's what I actually would expect them to do with any office for linux.
Why write a completely new code, when an existing tool like wine exists and all they would need to do is tweak it a little.
Google did it with picasa, before they dropped linux version support.
|{urse
February 12th, 2013, 09:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Linux
It would be super awesome to see coWindows! But alas, legal hairyness, it'll never happen.
oldos2er
February 12th, 2013, 09:52 PM
Would it sell better than what they offer today?
Wouldn't such a thing essentially be an open source version of Windows? I can't see them ever doing that.
|{urse
February 12th, 2013, 10:11 PM
Yeah, I think OP was referring to a 'what-if' scenario.
MasterNetra
February 12th, 2013, 10:13 PM
Wouldn't such a thing essentially be an open source version of Windows? I can't see them ever doing that.
Not nesscerily lets not forget our systems are GNU/Linux, with GNU being the filesystem and what not. Linux after all is just a kernal. ;) Anyway I don't see them remaking their OS around a Linux Kernal or anything like that. But I can see them possibliy making a Propertary alternative to wine for Linux if there is a big enough demand to where they could profit decently enough off it. That said they probably don't see themselves doing well with it, not enough demand to warrant a competition with WINE.
unheeding
February 13th, 2013, 12:03 AM
When pigs fly!
monkeybrain2012
February 13th, 2013, 12:16 AM
Who cares? Windows programs are not so hot. If you must use them there is WINE or vbox. If MS ever does that it would be for the purpose of undermining FOSS.
neu5eeCh
February 13th, 2013, 02:08 AM
Do you mean something like a Microsoft built wine?
Wine with all the windows needed components built in and fully usable for all windows programs, with complete support by Microsoft.
And of course you would have to run full time anti-virus and anti-malware software in that brand spanky new petri dish. It would be a whole new playground for virus makers.
Dr. C
February 13th, 2013, 02:19 AM
And of course you would have to run full time anti-virus and anti-malware software in that brand spanky new petri dish. It would be a whole new playground for virus makers.
Why not simply run Windows in a virtual machine under GNU/Linux? For a very large number of Windows programs this is a very simple and effective solution. Wine is of course also an option.
|{urse
February 13th, 2013, 02:58 AM
I know I'd buy an OS featuring a unified linux 3x + nt 7 kernel, thought about it often.
cariboo
February 13th, 2013, 04:16 AM
A better question would be, would you purchase it, if it cost the equivalent to $150.00 - $200.00. Microsoft would still have to support the massive support structure it currently has.
VeeDubb
February 13th, 2013, 04:48 AM
Who cares? Windows programs are not so hot. If you must use them there is WINE or vbox. If MS ever does that it would be for the purpose of undermining FOSS.
I don't entirely agree with it, but the argument has been made that even WINE has done a huge amount to undermine the FOSS movement.
fontis
February 13th, 2013, 10:17 AM
Honestly? No.
A lot of people seem to forget that Windows being so big has little to do with Windows itself. It's actually more about the software flora around it and how they (MS) have used their position to further their stronghold on the PC industry and market.
Windows was never a "superior OS", from a technical point of view at least. What they did really well in the beginning was to offer more of a cohesive package with the software around it. MS Office for instance is a huge reason to Microsofts success, both on Windows and as a tool to gain market share.
I think with the current business model that MS has, it is in their interest to not play nice with other OS, and should they start doing so they would lose out on their income.
Like someone else said... the "best" Windows version was Win7. But even that one suffers from "Windows"-esque problems.
Linux based operating system offer just so much more potential atm. Interestingly though, with the stars being aligned the way they are now.. we might see a bigger shift of developers and perhaps the start of the fall of Microsoft's stronghold.
Windows 8 is pretty horrible, and the steps taken with 8 is looking to annoy a lot of big name developers - who are now looking to branch elsewhere (Valve for instance).
ssam
February 13th, 2013, 02:12 PM
It could be called Lindows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire#History) :-)
They couldn't use Linux without putting the whole thing under the GPL, rendering its advantage useless.
only the where they modify GPL components. The GPL does not care about bundling software into a distribution, only creating derivative works of the individual pieces.
So if they ported internet explorer to linux, they would not have to GPL it. If they built a browser from GPL components, then they would.
BrokenKingpin
February 13th, 2013, 02:29 PM
I don't see the point at all. If you want to run Windows programs, run Windows. It is not a perfect OS, but it works.
grahammechanical
February 13th, 2013, 04:09 PM
What if a significant number of governments insisted on open source simply because of the lower costs and Microsoft needed some way to continue to get revenue from selling its products? What then?
fontis
February 13th, 2013, 05:09 PM
I think in an ideal situation its possible to sell open-source software.
Why can't software be used the same way webpages are?
You "buy" the website, and once you do you get the source too. So you can do whatever you want with it.
SeijiSensei
February 13th, 2013, 05:22 PM
only the where they modify GPL components. The GPL does not care about bundling software into a distribution, only creating derivative works of the individual pieces.
Wouldn't it depend on how the Windows subsystem was built? Anything like a kernel driver would have be GPL'd.
And who in his right mind would want the Registry to be superimposed on Linux? I know people complain about how unruly /etc can be, but it's a lot better than the Registry with its thousands of keys with arcane values.
Frankly I think it would be easier for MS simply to sell Linux versions of its software, though as I wrote over in that thread, I think the future looks more like Office 365 where everything happens in the cloud.
Paqman
February 13th, 2013, 09:07 PM
Would it sell better than what they offer today?
Why would it?
deadflowr
February 13th, 2013, 09:17 PM
To think, it took me a whole day to realize the thread title, linux version means linux distro, in which case the questions answer would be no.
However, I wholeheartedly believe if they did make a linux distro, it would probably, quickly, dominant the distro charts.
VeeDubb
February 13th, 2013, 09:35 PM
However, I wholeheartedly believe if they did make a linux distro, it would probably, quickly, dominant the distro charts.
Personally, I have a tough time believing that. If they made a more reliable replacement for WINE, that'd be popular, but a full distro? I think not. I just don't have any faith that it would be all that impressive. Frankly, I wouldn't use it.
Native linux IE? I'd be first in line, not because I like IE, but because even in 2013 there are still sites that don't function correctly in any browser besides IE.
Native MS Office? You betcha. I like Libre Office, and I think it's more than adequate for what 90+% of people need, but if you need to make really advanced documents, MS Office is simply better. The implimentation of VB in LO is a joke, and without VB, you're extremely limited when creating advanced forms.
On the other hand, if they made a Linux distro that could run IE and Office natively, but managed to make sure that nobody was able to co-opt their implimentations of IE and Office, then it might at least make it into the top 10, and even I would have to consider it.
deadflowr
February 13th, 2013, 11:25 PM
Personally, I have a tough time believing that. If they made a more reliable replacement for WINE, that'd be popular, but a full distro? I think not. I just don't have any faith that it would be all that impressive. Frankly, I wouldn't use it.
Native linux IE? I'd be first in line, not because I like IE, but because even in 2013 there are still sites that don't function correctly in any browser besides IE.
Native MS Office? You betcha. I like Libre Office, and I think it's more than adequate for what 90+% of people need, but if you need to make really advanced documents, MS Office is simply better. The implimentation of VB in LO is a joke, and without VB, you're extremely limited when creating advanced forms.
On the other hand, if they made a Linux distro that could run IE and Office natively, but managed to make sure that nobody was able to co-opt their implimentations of IE and Office, then it might at least make it into the top 10, and even I would have to consider it.
I agree WINE would be the better idea, and I still haven;t a clue what is meant by 'version'. But I believe Microsoft, if they built a linux distro, would outmarketing campaign the other distros by a thousand miles, implanting a desire to 'get it' into those who are easily persuadable.
Paddy Landau
February 14th, 2013, 02:34 AM
Of course, there is the current rumour (just a rumour, though) that Microsoft is considering porting Office to Linux. I don't think it will, though; it's more likely that MS would provide a cloud version that would be available from any browser, regardless of operating system.
prodigy_
February 14th, 2013, 04:41 AM
That would have to steal Wine for that - it's the only way MS knows. They still use the NT kernel they stole from IBM in the early 1990s.
SeijiSensei
February 14th, 2013, 02:48 PM
They still use the NT kernel they stole from IBM in the early 1990s.
The model for NT was Digital's VMS (http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-2000/windows-nt-and-vms-the-rest-of-the-story-4494). Microsoft hired Digital's Dave Cutler to head the design for NT. They didn't steal the NT kernel from anyone. It shares architectural similarities to VMS because the design team had a lot of the same members. At the time the two companies were on quite different trajectories; I would have left Maynard for Redmond then, too.
mike acker
February 14th, 2013, 03:08 PM
i think windows apps are written from a different philosophy -- which makes them fundamentally incompatible with Linux.
that philosophy being derived from the Old Days of DOS . Back in the Day any programmer worth his salt would hook interrupt vectors and generally modify the O/S in order to make his app work the way he wanted
it was great for development . but the general practice of modifying the os to accommodate the demands of the app programmer has not been conducive to security requirements ...
i think we are riding a "Sea Change" today as it has become apparent that security is a basic computer requirement -- and that ain't available from the mainly used system. this "Sea Change" generally affects the way business is conducted and reaches all the way out to the obsolesence of the USPS
worse, that mainly used system cannot be changed to accommodate security requirements . research into the nature of these so called 'remote procedure calls'
if i were a betting man I'd wager this is why we are seeing rumors of a version of office for Linux... "office" may survive but its old host os will not .
|{urse
February 14th, 2013, 06:04 PM
*IF a new kernel incorporating both APIs was developed.. You would all be wearing Microsoft t-shirts.
mike acker
February 14th, 2013, 06:14 PM
*IF a new kernel incorporating both APIs was developed.. You would all be wearing Microsoft t-shirts.
it's not just an API
it's a methodology
|{urse
February 14th, 2013, 06:16 PM
If it were a new kernel that would necessitate a completely re-designed OS therefore a new 'methodology' securitywise and otherwise.
MrsUser
February 14th, 2013, 06:51 PM
I see two options there:
1. If Canonical would employ the WINE team for that, to build some sort of 'built-in CrossOver' that runs Windows software in a sandbox (for security reasons).
2. A built-in VM, in which you can install a copy of Windows. Basically VirtualBox that is like the 'seamless mode' of VirtualBox, but in a way that it is really seamless, i.e. that you run Windows software like any other software, but you don't see what's 'under the hood' at all.
In the long run it'd be the end for MS though, because then developers would start to build their software for Ubuntu instead of Windows, as the old Windows users wouldn't buy any new Windows anymore, but only keep one Windows license for their built-in VM in Ubuntu.
To be honest, I'm glad that Linux/Ubuntu has only a small number of users compared to Windows. It keeps all the nasty stuff out of the Linux world. If everyone would switch to Linux/Ubuntu, all the malware crap would appear for Linux as well I guess. Not as harmful as on Windows platforms, because Linux is better and more secure by design, but it would be very noticable, I suppose.
Since I started to use Ubuntu as my only desktop OS, my life has become easier -- exactly because Linux is still rather a niche and not as much targeted as Windows, thus I'm not as worried as I was with Windows when doing my online banking stuff or alike. On the other hand I guess a user base as big as Mac OS X has (or a bit bigger) would be a good thing. Let's imagine Ubuntu has a market share of 20% someday, then we'd get all the heavy apps on our desktops (Adobe suite, big game titles, etc), but still a small enough percentage to be of major interest for malware programmers, at least not as targeted as Windows users. However, as said, Linux is more secure by design, and on top of that requires users to behave more security-oriented. So, even if Ubuntu would wipe Windows from the market (in a distant utopia), the Internet would be more secure in total. Because with Linux, hackers have a much harder time to smuggle in malware. It starts already with the software center and the fact that any infested PPA would get bunked within hours. It's that simple if you don't download exe files from obscure sources as it is for Windows. Usually, if you stick to known and trusted PPAs (for instance, OMGUbuntu or WebUpd8 would never recommend any contaminated PPA sources) you should be fine.
Just my thoughts.
monkeybrain2012
February 14th, 2013, 09:02 PM
Not interested. Anything that MS touches will be twisted to become standard non compliant. A great bonus for running Linux is to escape the monopolistic clutch and the corrupting effects of MS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.