# Windows 11 ?



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

In the grand scheme of Windows versions, Windows 10 would be a throwaway version until whatever follows after Windows 10x fails to move the needle. For the latest incarnation of Microsoft's "most secure ever" OS, Windows 10 has been something just shy of a disaster in terms of the vulnerability toll.

Windows 2000 was arguably the only even numbered release that mostly didn't stink on ice. Windows 98se was pretty good and shouldn't have been replaced by Windows Me.

I'm looking forward to a post lawsuit version of Windows 10 that does away with all of the tie-ins to a Microsoft account (and hopefully Cortana). I don't worry about being bleeding edge on my lone Windows 10 machine as I don't use it for much. My fiddling is done on Windows 7 Pro and all of the heavy lifting is done on various Debian boxes.

Seeing the database-driven filesystem that was promised a long time ago would be cool but I'm almost afraid to ask what database engine they plan to use. I'm actually of a mind that Microsoft is consciously avoiding including a real database in the Windows distribution as it might cut into their Excel business where data goes to be miscalculated.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Except for a couple of non-MS programs the various versions of Windows 10 have worked well for me. I had to run Printmaster 18 under compatibility mode with each major MS update. This program is 10 years old, so I was not surprised at the need to do this.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Since the current Microsoft cash cow is their Azure cloud service and MS has been building more and more Linux compatibility into their OS, I won't be at all surprised to see a Windows 11 that runs on the Linux kernel instead of the NT kernel. An emulation layer could be used for legacy compatibility.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Since the current Microsoft cash cow is their Azure cloud service and MS has been building more and more Linux compatibility into their OS, I won't be at all surprised to see a Windows 11 that runs on the Linux kernel instead of the NT kernel.


I'd be very surprised at seeing a Windows 11 as Microsoft went on record as Windows 10 being the last version of Windows.


> An emulation layer could be used for legacy compatibility.


There are bits and pieces of Linux solutions to that already. Chief among them are Wine and Microsoft's own .net virtual machine that has been available on Linux for about three years.

One of the reasons that Windows runs so damn slow is that most of the modern software is already leaning hard on one or more .net virtual machines. I hope being able to support ARM was worth all of the absolutely wasted resources.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> I'd be very surprised at seeing a Windows 11 as Microsoft went on record as Windows 10 being the last version of Windows.There are bits and pieces of Linux solutions to that already. Chief among them are Wine and Microsoft's own .net virtual machine that has been available on Linux for about three years.
> 
> One of the reasons that Windows runs so damn slow is that most of the modern software is already leaning hard on one or more .net virtual machines. I hope being able to support ARM was worth all of the absolutely wasted resources.


There's a more hardware and OS's running on the Linux kernel now than on the NT kernel. I don't know what MS might call it, but if they want to stay in the OS business that's most likely the direction they'll go as well in my opinion. I don't think they'll want to devote the expensive resources needed to replace NT with a modern kernel of their own.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I don't think they'll want to devote the expensive resources needed to replace NT with a modern kernel of their own.


If you remember back far enough (the late 1980s), Windows NT was originally NT OS/2. It was originally supposed to run on RISC hardware and support POSIX 32-bit, OS/2 16-bit and DOS 16-bit applications (because nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM). This was years after Apple, Atari and Commodore had released 32-bit computers with 32-bit operating systems.

Microsoft has been performing various acts of topiary and grafting on the NT kernel for over 30 years and as such, it stands a pretty excellent chance of retaining its lead in malware vulnerability for all time. Whether they call them bugfixes, patches or "quality roll-ups" (a euphemism to hide the quantity of patches in the update), today's Windows is perhaps the most bubble gum and baling-wired OS ever and Microsoft's answer to that charge is to throttle up the marketing turbine with another claim of "most secure ever" that is even more hogwash than that last time.

The model of using .net probably doesn't lend itself to Linux as Linux already has a substantially finer breakout of OS functionality. It may also make Microsoft private system calls a lot more difficult to hide such that developers outside of Microsoft wouldn't be disadvantaged by Microsoft's API documentation omissions (I don't know if they're still getting away with this or not).

Microsoft and their partners perhaps have too much invested in .net and DirectX to shift to Linux and OpenCL. If you're going to make that kind of a leap, why not just use Linux and be done with it?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> Microsoft and their partners perhaps have too much invested in .net and DirectX to shift to Linux and OpenCL. If you're going to make that kind of a leap, why not just use Linux and be done with it?


I assume you do know that Linux is a kernel, not a complete operating system. There are many Linux based OS's, including Android and the free Windows look alike PCLinuxOS I'm using right now. My guess would be that MS would develop their own OS/desktop using the Linux kernel similar to Red Hat and other commercial Linux based OS versions. Linux has long been the basis of commercial networking devices, and now it's a mainstay of enterprise infrastructure as well. Linux is a tried-and-true open-source kernel, and its use has expanded to underpin systems for cars, phones, web servers, and more recently consumer level networking gear. MS could well adopt it for their desktop OS and I suspect the majority of the computer buying public wouldn't know or care as long as it still looked and worked like the Windows they expect. And MS could save millions in development, maintenance, and support costs while offering a more secure product.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I assume you do know that Linux is a kernel, not a complete operating system.


Linux is an operating system. The Linux Kernel is its kernel. Just because there isn't a reference model from Linus or the GNU Project doesn't mean that Linux isn't an operating system.

If you visit linux.com, you'll see this description of Linux:


linux.com said:


> *What is Linux?*
> Just like Windows, iOS, and Mac OS, Linux is an operating system.


Wikipedia describes Linux as "a family of open-source Unix-like operating systems".

Linode makes the distinction between the Linux Kernel and Linux itself:


linode.com said:


> Linux refers to the _Linux Kernel_ plus all the tools, utilities and libraries running on top of the kernel, many of which are managed under the umbrella of the GNU project. Colloquially, Linux refers to an _operating system_ (OS).


While using various bits of Linux for small projects is pretty simple, using the Kernel without all of the attendant tools would be difficult and trying to keep the finished product something that Microsoft could continue to charge for would be complicated. The same would be true of software written for Windows as the licensing can be complex where GPL or similar (MIT, Affero, FreeBSD, Microsoft Public License, etc.) is involved.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Key word: "Colloquially"... Linux by itself even with all the libraries, is relatively useless without the overlying operators such as GNU, Android, etc, plus the individual distribution customizations that make it "user friendly". It is not a complete OS by any stretch unless you're willing to go back to the dark ages of command line only usage. If Microsoft can't figure out how to use the Red Hat or Android commercial licensing model, then they might as well get out of the OS business completely. I've run various Windows versions on Linux/GNU based emulators for years. Virtual Box even supports a desktop interactive mode that lets Windows programs operate seamlessly using the Linux desktop. Below is a partial screen capture of my desktop. See if you can tell which icons are for Windows programs and which are for Linux native programs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> See if you can tell which icons are for Windows programs and which are for Linux native programs.


To assert that to be an operating system, a system must provide a Windows-like GUI is utter nonsense. To assert that it must to replace Windows, I'll buy that but that's a whole different question. If you think Windows is the be-all and end-all of GUIs, there's a distro (LinuxFX) for that. For GUIs, it is hard to beat Linux Mint Cinnamon. There are distros that are mostly HTTP-based if you think browsers define computing (and millions do). Server weenies often want nothing to do with GUIs (especially on Windows) and would rather use powerful scripts and shells to do things they'd otherwise have to write and compile programs to do.

Did you ever wonder why Windows users seem to depend so heavily on Excel for making lists? It isn't because Excel is easy, cheap or the best tool for any job. It is because the operating system doesn't provide any tools to easily handle basic lists and the command line tools (whether CMD or Power Shell) are almost completely inscrutable and you never know which shell you're going to get when you press win-X.

Unlike DOS and Windows of old, Windows doesn't even include a practical programming language (unless you're a complete shell nerd in which case, Power Shell is possibly the most abstruse shell ever -- no wonder Microsoft's first real nod to Linux was a bash shell). An operating system should provide pretty much everything someone would need to do basic computerly stuff but you won't find a lot of that in Windows. Windows can't even get plaintext right.


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

I will stick with OS/2. I still have the install floppy disk.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> To assert that to be an operating system, a system must provide a Windows-like GUI is utter nonsense. To assert that it must to replace Windows, I'll buy that but that's a whole different question. If you think Windows is the be-all and end-all of GUIs, there's a distro (LinuxFX) for that. For GUIs, it is hard to beat Linux Mint Cinnamon. There are distros that are mostly HTTP-based if you think browsers define computing (and millions do). Server weenies often want nothing to do with GUIs (especially on Windows) and would rather use powerful scripts and shells to do things they'd otherwise have to write and compile programs to do.
> 
> Did you ever wonder why Windows users seem to depend so heavily on Excel for making lists? It isn't because Excel is easy, cheap or the best tool for any job. It is because the operating system doesn't provide any tools to easily handle basic lists and the command line tools (whether CMD or Power Shell) are almost completely inscrutable and you never know which shell you're going to get when you press win-X.
> 
> Unlike DOS and Windows of old, Windows doesn't even include a practical programming language (unless you're a complete shell nerd in which case, Power Shell is possibly the most abstruse shell ever -- no wonder Microsoft's first real nod to Linux was a bash shell). An operating system should provide pretty much everything someone would need to do basic computerly stuff but you won't find a lot of that in Windows. Windows can't even get plaintext right.


Given that we're discussing a Windows 10 Linux kernel based replacement, I think it stands to reason that it would have to have a Windows "look and feel" GUI to expect widespread acceptance in the market place. I absolutely agree there much better options available, but would the Windows born and bred public accept them? It's not a case of capabilities as much as it's a case of marketing when it comes to the computer buying general public. MS does have a history with offering another "Unix-like" OS from back in the late 70's when they licensed Xenix from AT&T.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> MS does have a history with offering another "Unix-like" OS from back in the late 70's when they licensed Xenix from AT&T.


I ran a Xenix installation back in the day -- an MRP application running on Ryan McFarland COBOL. Running on a 386-25, it laid waste performance-wise to the system that replaced it running FoxPro on a Pentium III 300MHz under Windows NT 3.5.

Given that most Windows software (at least that which is compiled using Microsoft tools) is running on .net, Microsoft would be better off with a .net kernel rather than a .net virtual machine running on a Linux kernel. Remember what happened with JavaOS?

The whole abstraction layer is cool if you're going to run on a variety of platforms, but Windows doesn't seem to be destined for other than the x86 platform.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> I ran a Xenix installation back in the day -- an MRP application running on Ryan McFarland COBOL. Running on a 386-25, it laid waste performance-wise to the system that replaced it running FoxPro on a Pentium III 300MHz under Windows NT 3.5.
> 
> Given that most Windows software (at least that which is compiled using Microsoft tools) is running on .net, Microsoft would be better off with a .net kernel rather than a .net virtual machine running on a Linux kernel. Remember what happened with JavaOS?
> 
> The whole abstraction layer is cool if you're going to run on a variety of platforms, but Windows doesn't seem to be destined for other than the x86 platform.


I ran a Xenix installation as well for a multi-national manufacturer that was eventually replaced with a BSD Unix installation running on a DEC VAX-9000.

Here's an interesting take on a Windows/Linux implementation: Could Microsoft be en route to dumping Windows in favor of Linux?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Given that we're discussing a Windows 10 Linux kernel based replacement, I think it stands to reason that it would have to have a Windows "look and feel" GUI to expect widespread acceptance in the market place. I absolutely agree there much better options available, but would the Windows born and bred public accept them? It's not a case of capabilities as much as it's a case of marketing when it comes to the computer buying general public. MS does have a history with offering another "Unix-like" OS from back in the late 70's when they licensed Xenix from AT&T.


Damn, some strong Windows haters here ... hate to state the obvious, but Linux is virtually non-existent in desktop use. As of Sept 2020, Windows is 76.32% and Linux is only 1.53% making it effectively 0%. MacOS is 17.65% which is built on a Linux kernel, but I wouldn't really call that the same thing.

Enterprise / server OS is a whole different ball game.

Doubtful Windows will ever switch to a Linux kernel since it would break compatibility with every Windows app. Compatibility shims tend to be slow.

That being said, as a software engineer myself, .Net sucks because its tied to the OS kernel, so you can't really use lightweight containers. .Net Core fixes that... but again, as a software engineer, not seeing too many enterprise companies using C# these days.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Statistics is a tricky mistress and you need to fully understand the parameters of the survey before you can effectively use the results to support your claim.

I've seen recent statistics that show Windows everywhere from 37% to 99%. The margin of error can't cover a spread like that.

The browser and search engine stats are even worse.

Enterprises have never been keenly interested in programmer's programming languages (ex. Pascal, C). There are typically much easier ways to interact with databases that don't involve hundreds of lines of hard-to-read code.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Statistics is a tricky mistress and you need to fully understand the parameters of the survey before you can effectively use the results to support your claim.
> 
> I've seen recent statistics that show Windows everywhere from 37% to 99%. The margin of error can't cover a spread like that.
> 
> ...


All the stats I've seen from all the stat sites is around 80% +/-. Like I said, we're talking desktop here. Not server.

I was talking about C#. I started out in C++. I can't talk about it now since I haven't touched it in over a decade or more, but it certainly wasn't a modern language when I last worked on it. Everything was hundreds of lines of code as you said. C# is maybe 5 lines to read/write to a database at the lowest level. You can't really beat the "magic" of Java/Spring/Jpa though. They've got it down to 0 lines .


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Damn, some strong Windows haters here ... hate to state the obvious, but Linux is virtually non-existent in desktop use. As of Sept 2020, Windows is 76.32% and Linux is only 1.53% making it effectively 0%. MacOS is 17.65% which is built on a Linux kernel, but I wouldn't really call that the same thing.
> 
> Enterprise / server OS is a whole different ball game.
> 
> ...


Not a Windows hater at all, just a realist that sees where it appears MS is headed. Their OS operations are declining and their OS neutral cloud services are growing. MS apparently sees enough future with Linux that they're even releasing a Linux version of Edge. A legacy Windows emulator closely layered on the Linux kernel would take care of the reverse compatibility issues with a minimal speed penalty, just as the available emulators today are already used for Windows compatibility on Linux. The small speed hit might even serve as an incentive to switch to Linux native apps.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Not a Windows hater at all, just a realist that sees where it appears MS is headed. Their OS operations are declining and their OS neutral cloud services are growing. MS apparently sees enough future with Linux that they're even releasing a Linux version of Edge. A legacy Windows emulator closely layered on the Linux kernel would take care of the reverse compatibility issues with a minimal speed penalty, just as the available emulators today are already used for Windows compatibility on Linux. The small speed hit might even serve as an incentive to switch to Linux native apps.


If you google it, there's really only one person even remotely suggesting that Windows will switch to a Linux kernel. And wouldn't you know it? It was from an open source advocate. He used your example of Edge and WSL as "evidence" that Microsoft is going to Linux. Lol. That's quite a leap. Its more like Linux apps running on Windows then the other way around at this point.

But still... I'm agreeing with you on the enterprise / server side.

I'd have to disagree with you on Azure being Linux friendly. We use Azure at my company and it's way more user friendly then AWS and its random error messages, but Linux support isn't that great which is why pretty much every Java shop uses AWS.

That being said, every Java shop also uses Macs for development .


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Microsoft is making more and more moves trying to snatch other-than-Windows programmers from the jaws of success. What they once considered parasites are now something they've had to acknowledge and even show a little love to.

Let's not forget that they ported Visual Studio Code to Mac and Linux as well.

It has been obvious that Microsoft has been angling at a web-based environment since they came out with IE 5 so I submit that the desktop hasn't been their end game for a long time.

As for popularity being a requirement in winning hearts and minds, consider Galileo Galilei and his heretical suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Microsoft is making more and more moves trying to snatch other-than-Windows programmers from the jaws of success. What they once considered parasites are now something they've had to acknowledge and even show a little love to.
> 
> Let's not forget that they ported Visual Studio Code to Mac and Linux as well.
> 
> ...


Can't speak for every company out there obviously, but I'd say if you're doing C#, you're using Visual Studio, not Code. If you're doing Java, you're using Eclipse or IntelliJ. Not saying nobody uses Code or other stuff, but the full blown IDEs are likely more used at companies where Code is more for students / hobbyists. Could be some companies use it, but its pretty basic.

Desktop development / thick client is MOSTLY dead. That's what I started out in, but I've had to move to server side since I hate web development and there isn't that much money in it. There are of course plenty of HUGE applications that are still thick client because they need to be. I was forced to switch to Office 365 at work (vs Office 2019) and its terrible. Outlook 365 chokes when you try to do anything against 50 - 100 emails while Outlook 2019 laughs at thousands.

My current company is actually developing a new Windows desktop app that I'm unfortunately stuck baby sitting... but knowing what the app does, it would be a train wreck as a web app.

But yeah, of course Microsoft is branching out. They know there is a whole untapped market out there that they are trying to tap in to. Will be a hard sell imo. Linux people tend to hate ANYTHING Microsoft just because its Microsoft and because its closed source.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Here's just a few articles that seem to support a Windows/Linux transition:

Could Microsoft be en route to dumping Windows in favor of Linux?

Microsoft's first Office app arrives on Linux

Call me crazy, but Windows 11 could run on Linux

Could Microsoft Transition Windows to Linux?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> I was forced to switch to Office 365 at work (vs Office 2019) and its terrible. Outlook 365 chokes when you try to do anything against 50 - 100 emails while Outlook 2019 laughs at thousands.


Microsoft and e-mail is perhaps one of the biggest ongoing train wrecks on the Internet. One might get the impression that they were actively trying to sabotage it with their "alternative" standards and buggy software.


> But yeah, of course Microsoft is branching out. They know there is a whole untapped market out there that they are trying to tap in to. Will be a hard sell imo.


It is a hard sell for some important reasons. Among them are:

the marketplace remembers what happened with earlier IE-based web efforts and still has a violently bad taste in their mouths
Microsoft got serious about not trying to use Windows to do it way too late in the game while Amazon and Google didn't have any baggage in installed base or mindset
Microsoft has not demonstrated that they don't want to continue rowing against the current of long-established Web standards as driven home by their XPS and Silverlight efforts -- that they felt compelled to re-jigger the Chromium browser in their own somewhat distorted image suggests that they haven't given up



> Linux people tend to hate ANYTHING Microsoft just because its Microsoft and because its closed source.


I don't think that's a fair assessment. Linux people dislike Windows because it is fundamentally flawed in its approach to so many different tasks and unlike MacOS, Microsoft lacked (and arguably still lacks) the intestinal fortitude to scrape off the barnacles of all the previous generations. Only a clean slate can stop the madness.

Windows is what we have for off-the-shelf software but the alternatives look more attractive every year.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Here's just a few articles that seem to support a Windows/Linux transition:
> 
> Could Microsoft be en route to dumping Windows in favor of Linux?
> 
> ...


Microsoft releasing a few Linux apps means they want to try to tap into the Linux market, not that they'll drop Windows.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> I don't think that's a fair assessment. Linux people dislike Windows because it is fundamentally flawed in its approach to so many different tasks


Not arguing , just curious what you are referring to? You mentioned making lists above. I don't use Excel for making basic lists. I use it for making spreadsheets. Your argument about cmd/powershell vs Linux command line is potato / potato. If you're used to Windows cmd, its easy and straight forward. If you're used to Linux cmd then that's probably easy for you too. Switching back and forth if you aren't used to them, will seem confusing.

Powershell vs Bash is the same religious / political argument. You like what you're used to. Linux people tend not to like UI where as Windows people are more of "why would I want to memorize 5 line command lines when I can just click a button and do the same thing?".

At the end of the day, at 80% market share, you can't really argue with that. Same reason you can't argue with Chrome's market share.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Microsoft releasing a few Linux apps means they want to try to tap into the Linux market, not that they'll drop Windows.


They're not saying MS will drop Windows, they're saying they may drop the NT kernel in favor of the Linux kernel that they won't have to spend millions on supporting.

I don't know where you got the idea that Linux users don't like GUI's. Virtually every Linux based distribution available offers one or more GUI desktops, and all of the popular Windows replacement apps are GUI based. The Linux kernel has a much larger user base than NT, making MS adopting it with a Windows emulator for legacy apps likely a good financial move that could boost their stock value. From a user standpoint, done well, the traditional NT based Windows users would likely not notice any significant difference. With a minor configuration tweak to KDE, I can and have put someone in front of my laptop keyboard that has never used anything but Windows and they don't notice any difference with the desktop. At least until they look for Windows Mail ...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> They're not saying MS will drop Windows, they're saying they may drop the NT kernel in favor of the Linux kernel that they won't have to spend millions on supporting.
> 
> I don't know where you got the idea that Linux users don't like GUI's. Virtually every Linux based distribution available offers one or more GUI desktops, and all of the popular Windows replacement apps are GUI based. The Linux kernel has a much larger user base than NT, making MS adopting it with a Windows emulator for legacy apps likely a good financial move that could boost their stock value. From a user standpoint, done well, the traditional NT based Windows users would likely not notice any significant difference. With a minor configuration tweak to KDE, I can and have put someone in front of my laptop keyboard that has never used anything but Windows and they don't notice any difference with the desktop. At least until they look for Windows Mail ...


Microsoft would spend a ton of money building and supporting such a compatibility layer. Why? Because they'd have to mostly do it themselves. The same major issue that WINE has... WINE developers don't have access to the Windows source code, so they can only emulate documented APIs and some undocumented ones that they stumble upon or guess or try to reverse. They wouldn't be able to figure out all the various nuances. That's not a Windows specific comment, that's a general observation as a software engineer. That's why some apps don't work on WINE.

That's also the reason that .Net Core doesn't emulate .Net, it rather replaces it and one isn't compatible with the other. Reproducing all the nuances that developers may depend on in such a large API is impossible. It's not a 100% re-write obviously to go from .Net to .Net Core, but a lot of stuff is different because its written by volunteers who don't care about backwards compatibility.

Open source folks in general don't. Their motto is move forward. Even in my simplest Java projects, by upgrading the dependencies, I often have breaking changes. In classic .Net there was almost never a breaking change. Just the other day I upgraded a library on a minor dot release and they deprecated a method I was using.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Are you aware that I have a complete Windows 10 installation running within PCLinuxOS? Every Windows app works seamlessly with my KDE desktop. MS wouldn't have to work too hard to integrate legacy apps into the Linux world since most of the work has already been done for them. Want to try it? Here's one way: How To Install Windows 10 on VirtualBox


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't use Excel for making basic lists. I use it for making spreadsheets.


Do your spreadsheets all involve calculations? Many spreadsheets floating around today do not. I submit that if a document doesn't have calculations, it is a table stored in a spreadsheet and that's not what spreadsheets were for. They are simply static data files harvested or assembled from a database. It also gags me that every few years Microsoft fancies changing up what functions they want users to employ for certain tasks. It would appear that the goal is to help sell training rather than making users more productive.

The fundamental flaws are in the security model, the dependence on different runtimes and virtual machines and all the Rube Goldberg machinery built in to try to monetize information gathered about the user. The quantity of memory and storage space required to keep a modern machine running smoothly is an embarrassment. Every increment in processor cache ends up being jammed with OOP code.

I don't mean to suggest that every application should be compiled for the particular machine but if nobody is going to take advantage of the ability to run on lots of different processors, give up and write to one model and dispense with all of the various levels of abstraction.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Are you aware that I have a complete Windows 10 installation running within PCLinuxOS? Every Windows app works seamlessly with my KDE desktop. MS wouldn't have to work too hard to integrate legacy apps into the Linux world since most of the work has already been done for them. Want to try it? Here's one way: How To Install Windows 10 on VirtualBox


No, I have no knowledge of your PC set up at home. I am however aware of VirtualBox though. No, I don't want to install Linux at home. Why would I want to do that? Because you say its better? You still haven't mentioned anything Linux does better then Windows except make lists which makes no sense. Bash vs. Cmd is a personal preference. As I mentioned above: 80%+. Phones, tablets, DVRs, etc. don't count, we're talking about desktops here in which case Linux has 1-2%. Why would I want to run an OS used by 1% of people? Even ChromeOS has more desktop usage then Linux. Again, we're talking desktop, not server or containers. I'd never run a Windows container.

At least mention something that Linux can do that I can't on Windows. I can telnet, ping, tracert, nslookup, netstat, etc. all day long.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This is an interesting discussion for someone who 50 years ago started working with the IBM360 and who was a rabid loser advocate for Tandy TRS-80 TRSDOS in the early 1980's but who retired in 2002 and is using a Microsoft Surface so if anything goes wrong with an upgrade they'll have to defend themselves from an irate consumer.

From my perspective, there is the enterprise/server side which I long ago abandoned to others. Then there is the "device" world which...well...long ago left me pretty much as an Android device user and nothing more than a user.

It seemed clear to me in recent times Microsoft was just adjusting to the world. Sure a web-based environment plus getting their footprint in the device environment. Adapting chunks of Linux or other technology and using other-than-Windows programmers seems logical.

Still it's hard for me to see Microsoft walking away from the advantage they have in the world of offices, including home offices now.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Do your spreadsheets all involve calculations? Many spreadsheets floating around today do not. I submit that if a document doesn't have calculations, it is a table stored in a spreadsheet and that's not what spreadsheets were for. They are simply static data files harvested or assembled from a database. It also gags me that every few years Microsoft fancies changing up what functions they want users to employ for certain tasks. It would appear that the goal is to help sell training rather than making users more productive.
> 
> The fundamental flaws are in the security model, the dependence on different runtimes and virtual machines and all the Rube Goldberg machinery built in to try to monetize information gathered about the user. The quantity of memory and storage space required to keep a modern machine running smoothly is an embarrassment. Every increment in processor cache ends up being jammed with OOP code.
> 
> I don't mean to suggest that every application should be compiled for the particular machine but if nobody is going to take advantage of the ability to run on lots of different processors, give up and write to one model and dispense with all of the various levels of abstraction.


If I'm making a list of stuff that I'm not using a pen & paper for, I'll likely just use notepad. I use spreadsheets for stuff where I want to do stuff on rows & columns.

Uh... have you heard of Java. Java is a VM. Linux apps run on Java. You need to install a Java runtime. Java apps typically have HUNDREDS of dependencies.

You only build multi-threaded apps when there is actually a point.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NYDutch said:


> Are you aware that I have a complete Windows 10 installation running within PCLinuxOS? Every Windows app works seamlessly with my KDE desktop. MS wouldn't have to work too hard to integrate legacy apps into the Linux world since most of the work has already been done for them. Want to try it? Here's one way: How To Install Windows 10 on VirtualBox


Running Windows 10 in VirtualBox is not exactly "a complete Windows 10 installation running within PCLinuxOS". It is "a complete Windows 10 installation running within VirtualBox that is running in PCLinuxOS". Using VirtualBox I can install almost any operating system in it to run on Macs, Windows, Linux, etc...


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> No, I have no knowledge of your PC set up at home. I am however aware of VirtualBox though. No, I don't want to install Linux at home. Why would I want to do that? Because you say its better? You still haven't mentioned anything Linux does better then Windows except make lists which makes no sense. Bash vs. Cmd is a personal preference. As I mentioned above: 80%+. Phones, tablets, DVRs, etc. don't count, we're talking about desktops here in which case Linux has 1-2%. Why would I want to run an OS used by 1% of people? Even ChromeOS has more desktop usage then Linux. Again, we're talking desktop, not server or containers. I'd never run a Windows container.
> 
> At least mention something that Linux can do that I can't on Windows. I can telnet, ping, tracert, nslookup, netstat, etc. all day long.


At no time have I said Linux is necessarily "better", just that it may be a logical progression for MS as an NT replacement. Then again, I haven't said Windows is better either. You do know that ChromeOS runs on the Linux kernel I assume. And the point is that the Linux kernel has a much wider usage than the NT kernel, along with much more support that could work quite well in favor of the MS bottom line as they continue to transition to more profitable online services. With a Windows desktop running on a Linux kernel, there's little reason for them to loose their dominance in that market. Most users would likely not notice any difference. It wouldn't be the first kernel replacement MS has made.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

b4pjoe said:


> Running Windows 10 in VirtualBox is not exactly "a complete Windows 10 installation running within PCLinuxOS". It is "a complete Windows 10 installation running within VirtualBox that is running in PCLinuxOS". Using VirtualBox I can install almost any operating system in it to run on Macs, Windows, Linux, etc...


Yes, you're correct that it's running in VirtualBox running on PCLinuxOS. I thought the link would make that quite clear. And it's a "complete installation" in the sense that it's installed on a virtual drive exactly as it would be directly on a physical drive. I do agree that VirtualBox is a great tool for running various OS's on top of virtually any other OS.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Linux kernel has a much wider usage than the NT kernel, along with much more support that could work quite well in favor of the MS bottom line as they continue to transition to more profitable online services. With a Windows desktop running on a Linux kernel, there's little reason for them to loose their dominance in that market. Most users would likely not notice any difference. It wouldn't be the first kernel replacement MS has made.


Again, we're talking about desktops / home users in which case it doesn't. Not by a long shot.

Have you ever tried to get support on an open source project? As a Java developer, I certainly have. Some open source developers are helpful no doubt, I've also run into quite a few that have giant over inflated egos because they're on an open source project and actually get mad when you report a bug and/or tell you to fix it yourself. Yup, nice support lol. And no, I wasn't being rude or anything, I was being super polite, just reporting a valid bug. They actually bit my head off because I didn't fill out the bug report to their liking. Other projects like Eclipse, yeah, good luck reporting a bug on that.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Again, we're talking about desktops / home users in which case it doesn't. Not by a long shot.
> 
> Have you ever tried to get support on an open source project? As a Java developer, I certainly have. Some open source developers are helpful no doubt, I've also run into quite a few that have giant over inflated egos because they're on an open source project and actually get mad when you report a bug and/or tell you to fix it yourself. Yup, nice support lol. And no, I wasn't being rude or anything, I was being super polite, just reporting a valid bug. They actually bit my head off because I didn't fill out the bug report to their liking. Other projects like Eclipse, yeah, good luck reporting a bug on that.


Have you contributed to the Linux kernel and had problems? That's what's at issue here, whether MS should replace the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. I think it's pretty safe to assume that MS and others would recompile their Windows apps rather than dump everything for existing open source apps. There's nothing preventing anyone from developing and selling proprietary apps that run on the Linux kernel. Everything Linux does not have to be open source...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> If I'm making a list of stuff that I'm not using a pen & paper for, I'll likely just use notepad. I use spreadsheets for stuff where I want to do stuff on rows & columns.


Consider using a more powerful text editor. Wordpad might suffice. You made my point though. You're "forced" by the Windows mindset to use Excel to do the simplest of page layout functions.


> Uh... have you heard of Java. Java is a VM. Linux apps run on Java. You need to install a Java runtime. Java apps typically have HUNDREDS of dependencies.


That's may be a jargon thing. By that definition, Visual BASIC, PHP or Python would be virtual machines. I think of Java as being an interpreter.

I'm not sure how to unpack your statement that Linux apps run on Java. Java apps run on Java. Java runs on various operating systems.

What do you consider the various Microsoft C runtimes to be?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Do your spreadsheets all involve calculations? Many spreadsheets floating around today do not. I submit that if a document doesn't have calculations, it is a table stored in a spreadsheet and that's not what spreadsheets were for.


So would you prefer people use Access? I have a lot of data managed through Excel spreadsheets that does not involve calculations. I have a license for the software and it works. I do use Excel for spreadsheets with calculations so it isn't as if I'm paying for a program that doesn't get used for what you consider is the intended purpose. I just use it for more than calculations.

The businesses I deal with also are more likely to send an Excel document when they have formatted data to share (instead of an Access database). Big businesses at the top of their industries - not mom and pop shops that don't have better tools.

BTW: I considered Microsoft's software to be a reason to use their OS. Over the past few years they have opened their software up to run on other OSs (without using virtual machines running Windows on some other platform). Just trying to reach a larger marketplace.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> So would you prefer people use Access?


I think Windows should bundle something that would simply and quickly accomplish the task. Access is really too complicated for simple tables that aren't relational (and perhaps for those that are relational). I'm thinking of simple tables like collection lists (trading cards, CDs, DVDs, etc.) and holiday card addresses.

Trying to produce tabular documents certainly shouldn't require a substantial monetary and learning investment in a complicated database or a spreadsheet.

The real shame is that many Windows users have been beaten into thinking of computer uses in terms of how you can shoehorn whatever it is you're trying to do into one of the Office tools and that's unfortunate for everyone.


> BTW: I considered Microsoft's software to be a reason to use their OS. Over the past few years they have opened their software up to run on other OSs (without using virtual machines running Windows on some other platform). Just trying to reach a larger marketplace.


From the perspective of Office applications, the only package I can think of that they've added that runs on other than Windows or Mac is Microsoft Teams for Linux -- a arguably awful piece of software on all platforms.

If I need to load something that should have been provided to me in a static format such as .PDF (i.e. an invoice or an estimate), I use LibreOffice. It has a few major advantages to the home user:

No ribbon

Free for any and all uses for as long as you want -- no subscription required

Able to load many more different document formats (some of which Office claims it is able to handle but doesn't)

It doesn't track your activities through your Microsoft account


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> I think Windows should bundle something that would simply and quickly accomplish the task. Access is really too complicated for simple tables that aren't relational (and perhaps for those that are relational). I'm thinking of simple tables like collection lists (trading cards, CDs, DVDs, etc.) and holiday card addresses.
> 
> Trying to produce tabular documents certainly shouldn't require a substantial monetary and learning investment in a complicated database or a spreadsheet.


The only reason you'd want to store anything in tabular format is because you hate UIs  and want to script or process the file by command line tools. What purpose is there for a person to have a file in that format? But, if you really want to do that, Notepad does it very easily.



harsh said:


> I
> 
> No ribbon
> 
> ...


Sorry, but wrong on all counts except half of one (or maybe 25% of one).

You don't like the ribbon because you hate UIs . Ribbons make a much more effective use of screen real estate vs have dozens of tool bars.
Office is free for students and schools. For home use, only 365 requires a subscription. Office 2019 does not and works a whole lot better.
I have a local account on my Windows PC and my Office 2019 is NOT signed in. Tracking / telemetry is all turned off anyways. I don't sign in to Chrome either.
I joke on the "you hate UIs", but typically Linux people do because they prefer to do everything through command lines and scripts. Most people don't.

P.S. Once again the world disagree with you as well. Effectively, NOBODY uses LibreOffice as its less then .01% market share.

G Suite is ~60%
Office is ~40%

Everything else is goose egg.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> But, if you really want to do that, Notepad does it very easily.


The problem with Notepad is that it doesn't save anything other than the plaintext of your document. Wordpad (using Microsoft's RTF) will save typeface information, pagination and tabs for later updating. Tabular data should use tabs or similar mechanisms to insure that placement is certain.



> Ribbons make a much more effective use of screen real estate vs have dozens of tool bars.


Ribbons try to guess what it is you want to see versus having a static menu. Having to jump back and forth between ribbon bars is a pain if the operations you're trying to perform are on different trees. The one that really galls me is having to pop back to the format menu to change the column width in Excel after being in the data mode.


> Office is free for students and schools.


Really? My understanding was that if you qualified, you could get it for a discount on Office 2019. Schools can extend their license to their students for free but the qualification depends on the institution having the appropriate licensing. The Education version of Office 365 Online is the free one.


> For home use, only 365 requires a subscription. Office 2019 does not and works a whole lot better.


And office 2019 has a big entry price (unless you qualify for a student programs mentioned above).


> I have a local account on my Windows PC and my Office 2019 is NOT signed in. Tracking / telemetry is all turned off anyways.


This is another of those Office 365 versus Office YYYY things. Most Office users probably aren't using Office 2019 these days.


> I joke on the "you hate UIs", but typically Linux people do because they prefer to do everything through command lines and scripts.


Scripting can be a powerful tool and I'm a big fan of one-liners but operating systems aren't really about GUI versus non-GUI as they all have at least two command line interfaces and at least one GUI option.


> P.S. Once again the world disagree with you as well. Effectively, NOBODY uses LibreOffice as its less then .01% market share.


You need to cite your survey sources.

Please re-read my regret above about Windows users trying to use the Office hammer on every problem. People shouldn't need Office but if someone is stupid or lazy enough to send them an Office document, there are free options so you aren't screwed.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> The only reason you'd want to store anything in tabular format is because you hate UIs  and want to script or process the file by command line tools. What purpose is there for a person to have a file in that format? But, if you really want to do that, Notepad does it very easily.
> 
> Sorry, but wrong on all counts except half of one (or maybe 25% of one).
> 
> ...


You're knowledge of Linux is so out of date that it's pretty laughable. There are hundreds of Linux/GNU programs that are GUI centric including replacements for virtually all Windows programs. With some exceptions when debugging a new program, everything I do with my Linux installs is GUI based from browsers to graphics to office apps and even e-book editing or converting. Off hand I can't think of a single Linux/GNU program I've used in years that doesn't have a GUI front end. I haven't used a command line only based OS since my Xenix days. Oh, and every Windows and Linux installation I've done for others over the years got OpenOffice and then LibreOffice installed. No one has ever asked for MS Office later on including my former commercial clients...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> You're knowledge of Linux is so out of date that it's pretty laughable. There are hundreds of Linux/GNU programs that are GUI centric including replacements for virtually all Windows programs. With some exceptions when debugging a new program, everything I do with my Linux installs is GUI based from browsers to graphics to office apps and even e-book editing or converting. Off hand I can't think of a single Linux/GNU program I've used in years that doesn't have a GUI front end. I haven't used a command line only based OS since my Xenix days. Oh, and every Windows and Linux installation I've done for others over the years got OpenOffice and then LibreOffice installed. No one has ever asked for MS Office later on including my former commercial clients...


You're absolutely 100% correct. My knowledge of Linux IS laughable. Totally agree. Your knowledge of reality is equally laughable. You keep arguing about stuff that has ZERO basis in reality.

Desktop Operating System Market Share Worldwide | StatCounter Global Stats

Operating system market share

Can you name a single thing that you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows? Just ONE? You haven't in this entire thread.

The fact that you think nobody uses Office is my cue to check out lol... oh my... 

Office productivity software global market share 2020 | Statista

All the stuff you cited that "everybody" uses, in reality, actually NOBODY uses.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> You're absolutely 100% correct. My knowledge of Linux IS laughable. Totally agree. Your knowledge of reality is equally laughable. You keep arguing about stuff that has ZERO basis in reality.
> 
> Desktop Operating System Market Share Worldwide | StatCounter Global Stats
> 
> ...


You seem to be overlooking the whole topic of this thread, with some drift aside. We were discussing the possibility of MS replacing the NT kernel with the Linux kernel to save themselves a bundle of support money while maintaining their Windows desktop dominance. No one is saying either OS is better than the other at the desktop level. MS has switched kernels before, and this might be an attractive option for them since their focus has moved to the online services market rather than the desktop market. They've been building experience developing Linux versions of their existing products, and adopting more open source products, all of which suggests they might be looking in that direction.

And I never said no one uses Office, just that no one has asked for it on the desktop installations I've done that included LibreOffice. I use both Windows and Linux/GNU OS's as needed, and both have their good and bad features. Neither one is perfect...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So Windows 10 May 2020 Update now available with built-in Linux kernel ...



> Enemies No More: Microsoft Brings the Linux Kernel to Windows
> 
> Thanks to a feature called Windows Subsystem for Linux, you can already run Linux applications in Windows. WSL essentially translates commands meant for the Linux kernel---the core part of the operating system that talks to hardware---into commands for the Windows kernel. But now Microsoft will build the Linux kernel into WSL, starting with a new version of the software set for a preview release in June.
> 
> To be clear, Microsoft isn't replacing the Windows kernel. The Linux kernel will run as what's called a "virtual machine," a common way of running operating systems within an operating system. You'll have to make a point of installing WSL if you want to use the Linux kernel.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> So Windows 10 May 2020 Update now available with built-in Linux kernel ...


One step closer...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> One step closer...


Oh boy ... I certainly hope you don't live in a mountainous region. You certainly like to leap without looking.

"To be clear, Microsoft isn't replacing the Windows kernel. The Linux kernel will run as what's called a "virtual machine," a common way of running operating systems within an operating system. You'll have to make a point of installing WSL if you want to use the Linux kernel."

"WSL 2 won't include Linux GUI application support or GPU hardware acceleration just yet"

And, of course, you're also still living in an alternate reality... nobody actually uses WSL. WSL1 performance was terrible and had a bunch of compatibility issues. WSL2 is supposedly much better, but again, nobody actually uses it because, yup, you guessed it... people can just run a real Linux VM if they want to run Linux so bad... since, you know... you can't actually run a public Linux distro using WSL, you have to use one that Microsoft bastardized... and of course... if you look at the Microsoft store, you can see very few people have downloaded the images...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> And, of course, you're also still living in an alternate reality... nobody actually uses WSL.


The results of another uncited survey?

What does popularity have to do with what's best in other than availability of off-the-shelf applications?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> The results of another uncited survey?
> 
> What does popularity have to do with what's best in other than availability of off-the-shelf applications?


Uncited? I gave you 2 cites on the OS and 1 on the Office, but who's counting?  You know... sites that the whole world believes like Statcounter and Netmarketshare and Statista.

Uh... what does popularity have to do with a conversation about nobody using Linux on desktop? 

Do you even know how WSL works? You HAVE to use the Microsoft distros which you can ONLY get from the store. So yeah, the Microsoft Store stats reflect how many people are using WSL which is WAY less then the percentage of people running Linux at home which is pretty much 0.

What's 0% of 0%?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Oh boy ... I certainly hope you don't live in a mountainous region. You certainly like to leap without looking.
> 
> "To be clear, Microsoft isn't replacing the Windows kernel. The Linux kernel will run as what's called a "virtual machine," a common way of running operating systems within an operating system. You'll have to make a point of installing WSL if you want to use the Linux kernel."
> 
> ...


At no time have I said or even hinted that a transition to the Linux Kernel will happen overnight or even in the next few years. MS is leaving hints around though, that they may be looking in that direction along with accepting the open source world more broadly. MS and their shareholders already know that the big money is in online services and the Windows OS is becoming a much smaller part of their revenue stream while still a significant drain on resources. How long do you expect they'll continue to spend the money it takes to support the NT kernel when there's a ready made replacement available with minimal support costs on their end? That's what I and a number of others see as likely to drive a change, the money. We can certainly agree to disagree and wait for history to bear it out one way or the other of course, since neither one of us is in a position to actually know what's happening in the MS boardroom...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> At no time have I said or even hinted that a transition to the Linux Kernel will happen overnight or even in the next few years. MS is leaving hints around though, that they may be looking in that direction along with accepting the open source world more broadly. MS and their shareholders already know that the big money is in online services and the Windows OS is becoming a much smaller part of their revenue stream while still a significant drain on resources. How long do you expect they'll continue to spend the money it takes to support the NT kernel when there's a ready made replacement available with minimal support costs on their end? That's what I and a number of others see as likely to drive a change, the money. We can certainly agree to disagree and wait for history to bear it out one way or the other of course, since neither one of us is in a position to actually know what's happening in the MS boardroom...


But that's what I keep telling you ... it's simply not possible without a HUGE investment on Microsoft's part. Am I saying 100% it'll never happen? No, I don't work for Microsoft. I'm saying that if you understand how various technologies work in Windows, you wouldn't be thinking they're moving in that direction any time soon or even the medium term and probably not in the long term either.

One good example is the .Net framework (.Net classic, NOT .Net Core). Are you aware that MILLIONS of applications, tools, web sites and components still use .Net classic? Are you also aware that .Net classic is VERY tightly coupled to the Windows NT kernel? In fact, if you look at the .Net classic source code, you'll find that aside from collection classes and abstractions and such, the majority of stuff just forwards calls to the NT kernel.

Ok, so how do you switch to the Linux kernel when the most widely framework on Windows is tightly coupled to the kernel? Answer is, you don't. Without re-writing a large chunk of the framework. What you are suggesting is that they write a fake NT kernel to sit on top of the Linux kernel and forward calls from .Net to the fake NT kernel to the Linux kernel? Um... no...

Once you understand that .Net classic is tied to the NT kernel, you understand the whole point of .Net Core. It's a re-write of .Net that decouples it from the kernel because .Net classic doesn't work well in containers because, you guessed it, you need to put the entire Windows kernel into the container for .Net to work and thus you end up with a 16GB container which is useless and doesn't even work.

Microsoft has indicated that they don't intend to support .Net classic anymore and .Net Core is the path forward (other then updates and bug fixes for the next several years). Ok, that's great. Once they have everybody on the planet re-write their apps in .Net Core or some other language, they can get rid of .Net classic entirely and switch to a Linux kernel.

Except they can't because there's still a bunch of other legacy technologies that they still need to support that are also tied to the kernel.

Now, once they decouple or 100% drop support for all those coupled technologies then they can switch to the Linux kernel . Seeing as Microsoft rarely REMOVES apis or technologies...

Switching to the Linux kernel without dumping support for all those legacy technologies would mean Microsoft would have to spend millions or billions emulating them on a Linux kernel.

Or they can just tell everybody to install WINE and see what happens .


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> But that's what I keep telling you ... it's simply not possible without a HUGE investment on Microsoft's part. Am I saying 100% it'll never happen? No, I don't work for Microsoft. I'm saying that if you understand how various technologies work in Windows, you wouldn't be thinking they're moving in that direction any time soon or even the medium term and probably not in the long term either.
> 
> One good example is the .Net framework (.Net classic, NOT .Net Core). Are you aware that MILLIONS of applications, tools, web sites and components still use .Net classic? Are you also aware that .Net classic is VERY tightly coupled to the Windows NT kernel? In fact, if you look at the .Net classic source code, you'll find that aside from collection classes and abstractions and such, the majority of stuff just forwards calls to the NT kernel.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't be the first time MS has left applications behind them in the dust. I know of several companies that are still running standalone 16-bit MS-DOS installations for instance, because they no longer have the in-house expertise to rewrite their proprietary applications for 32 or 64-bit. That aside, there's no reason those Windows legacy apps that MS hasn't updated to run natively on the new kernel at the time could be handled with an emulator and/or virtual machine layer. Would it makes sense from a dollars standpoint? I don't think either one of us knows the answer to that, but as MS opens more apps to the open source and Linux world, it'll become less of an issue I suspect. Many third-party apps are already available for either OS. In the meantime, maybe we should both just sit back and see what the future holds instead of beating this dead horse any further. The last word is yours...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you even know how WSL works? You HAVE to use the Microsoft distros which you can ONLY get from the store.


I have WSL: Debian installed on my work machine but I rarely use it as it is so clumsy compared to a non-virtual installation. I use it once in a while to do text stuff and file renaming on Windows-homed files that are very messy even with dedicated third-party Windows applications. Interestingly, much of this has been to work around Excel's nonsensical handling of the well documented CSV format.

WSL stats have nothing whatever to do with Linux popularity (or lack thereof). WSL is a blunt instrument.

Every statistic you give without a citation is uncited. That's literally the definition of uncited.

Popularity has very little relation to relative goodness. Microsoft products drive that home on a daily basis. This is another example of using what users know versus what is appropriate. If it doesn't work the way you want, get a more expensive Microsoft product.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, so how do you switch to the Linux kernel when the most widely framework on Windows is tightly coupled to the kernel?


Yet another example of something that most everyone is using that Microsoft desperately wants to get rid of.

Given that Microsoft has already let loose of a .net Core for Linux, that would support the idea that they want in on that market going forward. It must have been costly to develop for a market that you insist doesn't exist. Perhaps Microsoft has a different motivation for porting .net Core to Linux.


----------

