Microsoft is ready to swap out the Windows kernel for Linux ?

Topic

New Reply

According to a blog post penned by open-source advocate Eric Raymond, Microsoft is finally ready to give up on that old relic it called Windows, which doesn’t even generate enough revenue anymore to be more than a “sideshow” at the company. Raymond says that now that Azure makes so much more money than Windows does, the firm is set to replace Windows with Linux, which will run an emulation layer in order to maintain compatibility with legacy apps….

https://www.neowin.net/news/eric-raymond-thinks-microsoft-is-ready-to-swap-out-the-windows-kernel-for-linux

1 user thanked author for this post.

doriel

Reply | Quote

Replies

Ever since Chredge arrived, I’ve been pondering the same possibility. MS is all about cloud services now, and Linux is big there. It’s not a competitor to MS, since MS doesn’t care all that much about Windows anymore, but is instead a moneymaker for them.

Under Nadella, MS clearly wants to develop Windows on the cheap, as evidenced by his elimination of the paid testers. When all the hard work of developing and maintaining an OS is already being done by someone else, why not make use of it and save the money? They did this with Chredge, which would have been unthinkable in the early 2000s, when MS was dominating the web with IE, but here we are.

People who are aware of Microsoft’s long history of predatory behavior and “EEE” (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) were understandably suspicious when MS became a Platinum member of the Linux foundation. Many of them immediately thought MS was trying to EEE Linux… but why now? Linux is making money for Microsoft with Azure, and that wasn’t true when Ballmer famously called Linux (or more properly, its license) “a cancer,” and even then, MS did not try to EEE Linux. FUD, certainly, but not EEE.

I’ve postulated that the reason MS would want to join the Linux Foundation was that it would potentially smooth out some of the licensing difficulties MS may have when trying to release a GNU-licensed OS with non-GNU bits, which is nominally prohibited by GNU and further encumbered by the recognition of software patents in the US (something that MS previously would have used as a weapon against others).

MS may have noted that licensing suits by members of the Linux Foundation against Platinum Linux Foundation members seem to evaporate really quickly. If MS can keep being nice to Linux and open-source, people may begin to see them as legit contributors, and any zealotry to “protect” Linux from them by means of legal action could fade.

Apple, of course, sidestepped the licensing issues by basing their OS on FreeBSD, which is licensed in such a way that Apple is free to grab it and incorporate it into their product without any obligation to open-source the code for the new stuff. MS could go that route, but MS is not developing Windows for a small handful of hardware configurations controlled by the company itself. Windows is meant to run on a broad variety of hardware configurations, and Linux is far ahead of FreeBSD when it comes to that kind of thing. If they could get around the licensing issues, Linux is clearly a better choice for them.

I would not go so far as to say MS is ready to do it, but it is not hard to see such a path from where we stand now, with WSL being integrated more and more into Windows. Various functions now handled by the Windows kernel could be handed off to WSL, one by one, with MS contributing to the kernel development where needed to make this happen.

As for the compatibility layer, WINE is already quite decent, having grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years, and MS could greatly accelerate this with a relatively small amount of effort, as one thing that has greatly slowed WINE development was Microsoft’s unwillingness to fully document their APIs. Some actual inside knowledge by MS could really give it a boost. Efforts to bring DX12 for WINE are already underway, and DX11 support is already strong enough that some Windows games run with better framerates on Linux than on the OS they were designed for.

I’d love to see some Microsoft money and knowledge poured into Linux. Some Linux fans will no doubt continue to sound the alarm, but they’re still stuck in the mindset of thinking MS is a Windows-centric company. Not in the Nadella era, they’re not. When Nadella was selected as the new CEO, it was because the shareholders wanted a cloud guy, and they got one. Much of the cloud runs on Linux!

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

2 users thanked author for this post.

doriel, Alex5723

Reply | Quote

Ascaris logic seems quite reasonable, but if MS were to have a Linux-based Windows and, therefore, an open source one, what is it going to happen when other developers start coming out with forks of Windows? Or picking up bits and pieces of its source code to use them as parts of their own software? Would, besides, maybe, Nadella, other people at MS as well as their investors like that?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

The only problem is that none of that is true.

https://www.neowin.net/news/eric-raymond-thinks-microsoft-is-ready-to-swap-out-the-windows-kernel-for-linux

Reply | Quote

This was april fools last year, wasnt it?
Or is it happening for real?

Microsoft is finally ready to give up on that old relic it called Windows, which doesn’t even generate enough revenue anymore to be more than a “sideshow” at the company.

My opinion is, that Windows has became very very unefective these days. Because it is relic. Mostly only graphics changes.. I mean every single application/ installation has like 100 MB+ today. Even single driver installation for audio device is that big. For me, there is no clear vision, how Windows would function in the future, its just made up on spot. Only because they are trying to impress customers and make more money (thats why they love Azure so much. Azure, that is basically Linux, its not Microsofts creation, they borrowed it).

Maybe my angle of view is deformed, but it seems to me like Linux installations are slim and fast. In comparsion to Windows. Buy new faster machine every two years is not a solution to me.

Such things as chnaging driver should be lightning fast with the computing capacity we have. But still it could take few minutes on a brand new machine. All those dependencies that we see today are making things more and more complicated.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote

Isn’t Microsoft pushing Linux in Windows 11 ? For what purpose ? Add Edge for Linux…

Reply | Quote