Slashdot Log In
Should The Next Windows Be Built On Linux?
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jan 18, 2003 09:55 PM
from the yoga-position-questions dept.
from the yoga-position-questions dept.
scrm writes "The next version of Windows should be built on top of Linux, according to this article by Robert Cringely of PBS." If Microsoft wanted to, they could be the world's largest vendor of Free software .. couldn't they?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Cringely is either incompetent or trolling for readers. A couple of glaring errors are worth pointing out:
Wrong. cmd.exe != DOS Wrong again. explorer.exe != Windows Strike three! There are lots of things to like like about Linux, but these claims are ridiculous.Parent
cmd.exe (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:cmd.exe (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. Robert X. Cringely is kind of like the Dread Pirate Roberts: a serial pseudonym. The name was first used in InfoWorld magazine when Dvorak left-- and started losing his mind, if his last couple years' worth of columns are any evidence-- to replace the famous byline. The Robert X. Cringely we're all most familiar with is really Mark C. Stephens; he's the guy who wrote the books and hosted "Triumph of the Nerds" on PBS and who writes "I, Cringely." He was the third Robert X. Cringely to write for InfoWorld, and he wrote for them for 8 years. Since that Cringely's departure-- okay, firing-- from InfoWorld in '95, many others have written columns under that name for the magazine.
The real Robert X. Cringely has been retired for 15 years, and living like a king in Patagonia.
Parent
Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:5, Informative)
In Windows 3.1 you could run DOS-atop-Windows-atop-DOS... but if you ever tried to run "Win" in that environment, you would get a message that indicated that Windows-atop-DOS-atop-Windows-atop-DOS just wan't going to happen, you're not at a "real" DOS prompt. You didn't have a full-featured version of DOS there, just the interface level.
If you carry that forward to XP, the "DOS" in XP doesn't directly control the low-level stuff anymore. Some nameless, faceless part of Windows does.
DOS-within-Windows is now just an alturnate wacky skin for Windows Explorer. It's just a familiar text-based way to do things, not a low level OS anymore.
Parent
Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it was the "full-featured version of DOS" running in that DOS prompt under Win3.1 and Win9X.
The X86 architecture has 2 main modes of operation: real mode (compatibility with 8086/186 processors -- all PCs to this day boot in this mode) and protected mode.
Under protected mode, it was possible to create something called a Virtual 8086-mode task. This allowed for real mode simulation within a protected mode environment, thus allowing real mode programs to work.
Each V86 session can, for most practical purposes, be made to think it is the only thing running (with no knowledge that it is being virtualized and having various instructions, operations, and interrupts intercepted by the protected mode operating system.)
Getting into protected mode from V86 mode is not possible, hence why Windows wouldn't run in a DOS box. It is also possible for real mode programs running in V86 mode to detect V86 mode by checking the appropriate processor status flag (I'm not sure if the OS can intercept this.)
DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) is what eventually allowed 32-bit DOS programs to run in true real mode or in DOS boxes. In DOS boxes, Windows would be the DPMI server; but in real mode, you'd need an external program to get you into protected mode first -- CWSDPMI, for example.
Parent
Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:4, Interesting)
NT, as a project, started out as "OS/2 version 3". Microsoft and IBM worked together on OS/2 version 1, and planned to split their resources so that IBM would create a version two, that was fully thirty two bit (wouldn't run on the much maligned 80286 and so wouldn't need the kinds of grafts and fixes running on that chip required), and Microsoft would concentrate on producing version three, a complete rewrite that would make use of the latest ideas in operating system design, be secure, genuinely multiuser, run on non-Intel architectures, etc.
When IBM and Microsoft had their spat, the projects continued, but without Microsoft seeing any need to make the "next generation" OS have anything to do with OS/2 at all. Compatability requirements were dropped to just the command line environment, the operating system was renamed (choose your own favourate urban legend, and about the only real sign that the operating systems were related was that the very first version, 3.1 (yeah, 3.1 - I could be cynical and suggest it's because Microsoft figured they never got anything decent out the door until "version 3" so they might as well jump the line... but I believe the real reason was that they wanted the version numbers to match those of the DOS/Windows line, NT had a Windows 3.1 compatable subsystem after all) could optionally be installed on an HPFS partition - HPFS being the OS/2 file system. This feature was dropped from later versions (I'm trying to remember that far back, but I think one issue was that NTFS wasn't implemented until 3.5 or 3.51 or something. Can anyone help me here?)
Unfortunately, this story has been misunderstood by a lot of people to mean "NT is just a version of OS/2". It isn't. It owes its history to OS/2, and maybe if OS/2 hadn't happened, Microsoft would be migrating its customers to "Xenix Windows". But that doesn't make it the same code and it isn't.
Parent
Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc (Score:4, Interesting)
"Yeah, Cringely is either incompetent or trolling for readers."
Yes he is, but he's just one person. What really saddens me is how pervasive this kind of thinking is. People who genuinely believe XP is based on DOS are a real threat to getting intelligent users to migrate.
When I was younger, I was originally turned off by the Mac platform because of all the ignorant users. It wasn't uncommon to hear them condescendingly say that Windows is based on DOS and Macs do true multitasking etc. And there I was, sitting in front of a box running a *preemptively* multitasking kernel (NT 4.0 at the time), thinking "there's no way I want to associate myself with these retards".
When I grew up, I realized how stupid I'd been and acknowledged that I didn't really hate Macs, but their users. Today I might even consider buying one because of OSX, but my earlier feelings show just how much a platform can be hurt by bigoted users.
Parent
Windows Kernels, and Environments (Score:5, Informative)
Quick and dirty architectural comparisons:
Linux Kernal -> Windows Kernel
sh -> cmd.exe
X server -> GDI.exe
Window Manager -> Explorer.exe
CORBA -> (D)COM
Note these are just quick approximations. My point is that both OS's are reasonably mature and stable (baring spyware, etc.) and there are a lot of areas where both could improve, but porting Windows onto Linux doesn;t make sense for Microsoft today and is a lot more work than Cringly seems to think.
But then this guy has never seemed to know what he is talking about
Parent
Re:Windows Kernels, and Environments (Score:5, Funny)
again, we think, who combines the awesomeness of *nix with the gui wikedness of XP? Oh yeah, apple!
Parent
I like this guy, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Let me start thinking that way.
You can get to a root prompt in Linux. You can do so in BSD as well. Solaris, also.
Apparently, these are all actually the same thing - they're all running Linux, underneath it all. And because it's that simple, it's just marketing - since the product is free - Solaris is just hyping it up so that people will use CDE.
Lets go further. Also, you can find a brain inside every animal. Cats have brains.
So, deep down, we're all cats, right*?
*Really old, bad movie quote
Parent
Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Not aborted! (Score:4, Informative)
Also, your progression for DOS isn't really correct. DOS and Windows were concurrent things for years. All 16-bit versions of Windows required you to actually go out and buy DOS. They weren't just two different things from a technical standpoint. They were two different things from a marketting standpoint. It was really more like:
DOS 3.0 >> DOS 4.0 >> DOS 5.0 >> DOS 6.0 >> Windows 95
Windows 1.0 >> Windows 2.0 >> Windows 3.1 >> Windows 95
Parent
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They'll use FreeBSD or NetBSD if anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They'll use FreeBSD or NetBSD if anything (Score:5, Insightful)
But only in the one direction, no? Do they ever license their own work as BSD?
Parent
Re:They'll use FreeBSD or NetBSD if anything (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the GPL licence: It requires that Microsoft give back; the thing to remember is that Microsoft is like a roach motel for source code -- it checks in, but it doesn't check out. The GPL would require Microsoft to make available any code they change under the GPL; it takes away their absolute control over the code, and takes away their ability to (over)charge for said code. Plus, a good roach motel doesn't let anything escape.
Parent
Re:They'll use FreeBSD or NetBSD if anything (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, considering what Microsoft has done in the past, the right word here is not "use", but "cannibalize".
Parent
wait..... (Score:5, Funny)
The question is (Score:5, Funny)
But no backwards compatiblity (Score:3, Interesting)
Pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Erm no. More like bankruptcy. (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd also be the largest vendor of Free Software filing for bankruptcy.
I don't intend that comment as a troll. I know some investors. (My uncle is one...) I've talked with them about MS etc and what they like/dislike about them. If they were invested in MS, they'd be upset about MS giving their moneymaker stuff away. They'd likely sell their stock in a heartbeat unless MS put one hell of a spin on it. There's the whole matter of how you make free software profitable. They want return on investment. They want what's tried and true.
Now, as for MS porting Windows to Linux: Wouldn't everybody (at least on
Erm. The "sitting atop" could be questionable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple released Darwin under the APSL out of the goodness of their hearts (and their PR department, I'm sure). They don't have any restriction against using Darwin source inside their closed source components, like Aqua. I think this means that there are certain kinds of linking that you're allowed to do with BSD code that you aren't allowed to do with GPL code, if you're going to keep your IP proprietary. So Apple may not have been able to do what they did had they used the Linux kernel. For example, wasn't there a recent flap over Linus changing the name of some kind of trap to GPL_ONLY?
I guess Microsoft could make this ok by GPLing anything that linked in that manner to the kernel, but it's definitely something that would have to be a consideration were this ever to occur.
Ooooh. This would be an excellent way for them to embrace and extend, wouldn't it? Couldn't they release a Linux variant that was practically useless without their proprietary components? They wouldn't have to do that at first, but they might be able to work up to it...
Iduno. Just talking.
One More Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Cringely has no idea wtf he is talking about.
Windows XP is NOT a simple windows manager sitting atop MS-DOS.
But it has a DOS prompt!! Yeah, so does Linux if you install an emulator, does that mean Linux runs on MS-DOS?? The DOS prompt in XP is just another program that happens to look like what you used in the 80's before there was Linux
I could go on and on about how XP is based off the NT core which came from VMS and how different the X server is from how MS does its graphical shell, but I'm sure many other posters will put up the same info.
OK: Even ignoring why Cringely was completely wrong from a technical standpoint, here's why he's still wrong even if he were right (does that make sense?)
MS: Has spent a boatload of money copying and building there own versions of what everyone else already had. They are finally starting to get it right, and are making money hand over fist doing it (at least in the OS sphere which is what we are talking about). Moving to a Linux base would be a HUGE investment, and MS software would go back to the stability of Win98 for 3 generations as they worked out all the bugs. As much as the Linux gurus on Slashdot would love to see MS sabotage themselves like that, they aren't that stupid.
Linux: Linux would NOT be helped by having MS grab the Linux kernel and use it as a base for their OS. I also don't give a fsck what you'll say about "but the GPL!!" If MS were to do this they would withouth question weasal around the GPL or hire an army of lawyers to get it thrown out or watered down to the point it wouldn't matter. Meanwhile, they would either not give any code back to the kernel, or more likely would inject code specifically designed to slowly build up an IP claim over the entire kernel.
MS doesn't like Linux but believe me, they are doing it a major favor by not trying to subvert it, and despite how much everyone here loves to bash MS, a whole bunch of the software running on
Linux owes some credit to MS for providing a model to follow, like it or not.
Once again, Cringely is proved to be a whole bag of hot air.
Re:One More Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the actual logic of spending this money to build their own version of what everyone else already had is the troublesome part; There are major parts of the OS that have been quite literally 'carbon copied' from the Free/Open/Net BSD code, with a zero licence cost of any kind at all. Why they go about re-inventing the wheel when somebody is giving away a far better wheel (Such as the process scheduler, VM, file system, and network stack, to name a few) 'no strings attatched*', is beyond me... however it does reek of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Of course that may not be the case, but Microsoft's apparent refusal to adopt larger portions of the BSD code seems like a bad business decision to me. There is just a lot less money that would have to have been spent, and the end result would have been a more flexible, stable, and secure system than what Microsoft developed in-house, and yet they get to keep all of the BSD-licenced code as tightly-controlled as the Windows source currently is. It seems like Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by not taking advantage of what amounts to thousands of man-hours of free (non-cost, no-strings attatched) work and research; passing up a free lunch is a very un-Microsoft like behavior.
And I agree that it's crap to say that they would build the OS on top of Linux. Some people may idolize the GPL, and that's fine. Many feel the BSD licence is a more 'free' licence, again that's fine. Given the choice between the two, however, and Microsoft would almost certainly choose the 'no strings attached*' BSD code.
*No strings attached meaning that there is zero cost to licence the code, and there are no terms on redistribution other than to give credit to the original authors; The GPL stipulates that any changes of the code must be redistributed, the BSD licence does not. This modified code redistribution is the disinguishing feature of the GPL to which Microsoft objects-- they do not wish to allow anyone access to their code (not without working out some scheme whereby Microsoft will recieve monetary 'compensation' for access to their modifications, at a minimum.)
Parent
You're wrong. VMS != UNIX (Score:5, Interesting)
You're wrong. VMS and UNIX appeared at about the same time, but are very different beasts. Arguably, VMS was better than UNIX, but UNIX became dominant as a result of BSD.
Parent
Nice idea, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are several problems stopping MS from using Linux:
1) They have
2) Remember all the FUD about the GPL and Linux? Well, Microsoft probably doesn't feel like doing a three-point-turn and adopting Linux and proclaiming it as the underlying foundation to Windows. And I doubt they'll use Linux and just remain silent about the presence of Linux.
3) If they use Linux, they will probably want to extend some of the kernel, or alter parts of it. But it's GPL!! Now, they can dynamically link to GPLed software and that's okay, but if they want to make any alterations, they hve to distribute them. Now, that might actually make a valid busines plan, but it isn't an option as far as Microsoft is concerned. They don't want anyone seeing any source, if they can help it. The past is evidenc.
4) This would mean a re-write of either ALL of their software - Office, IE, VisualStudio, BackOffice
Basically, what it boils down to is: compatability with existing and under-development software, and a desire to keep the Windows platform closed to everyone outside of Microsoft.
Also, MS wants to integrate DRM into the OS. And they definitely don't want anyone getting their hands on the code. So they'd be rather worried about how to distribute the DRM without any legal issues concerning the GPL. They'd have to keep the DRM right away from the core of the OS, which is where they appear to want it to be. (Okay, this is a rather flaky reason, but it may be a small factor).
Re:Nice idea, but... (Score:4, Informative)
It SHOULDN'T mean a rewrite of all of their software, as the software should just be written to reference to the OS layer below it, not to the Kernel layer below that. The only things that might have problems are things like Visual C++ which, as part of their programming language, has the ability to make direct device calls... which even then should be done via device drivers running in the OS layer.
Theoretically, the OS should run as an abstraction layer, so that whatever it is running on top of, whether that be a DOS "kernel", NT kernel, Macintosh (before OSX), or Linux or BSD kernel, isn't even something that needs to be addressed by the individual apps.
Of course, that's in a perfect world, where any windowing system, whether it be MS Windows based, Mac windowing based, or X-Window based, can run on top of any kernel. We don't have a perfect world, and application developers (especially Microsoft ones) are known to code quick and dirty for their specific setup only, not for global compatibility.
So, yes, for the time being, you are correct.
Parent
Cringely a bit confused.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Utterly ridiculous and wistful (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I think it would sell all over the place though clearly people would insist on running X with "Microsoft Lindows" anyway... look at people running X with MacOSX.
It's clear that Linux users need a MUCH better windowing environment, but we've been geared to X for so long that another windowing environment is unimaginable... okay maybe not unimaginable, but so far, not projected to be in wide acceptance.
I also fear for what would happen if Microsoft got control of the Linux desktop. Instability is a "feature" I firmly believe is part of their marketting strategy. (Provide patches for a while and then stop offering them while pushing the 'next version.') We would always have problems and would never get fixed.
However, I also see people hackign Windows for Linux by writing compatible libraries and making it free. It is happening with a great deal of stuff in the WINE project... it would just be more complete and more compatible wouldn't it?
Anyway... it's not going to happen. MS would sooner take FreeBSD and put Windows atop of that.
But then... (Score:3, Funny)
Err, world's largest vendor of free software? (Score:5, Funny)
Windows on linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Displaying his ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
The command processor has nothing to do with the operating system. This statement displays Mr Cringely's deep ignorance of operating sytems.
Having worked on development of MSDOS,Window 95 and Windows NT, I can state authoratatively that DOS is not the foundation of windows XP (which is really NT with lipstick). Anybody who knows anything about OS's knows this anyway.
Re:Displaying his ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
There were worlds of diffence under the hood of Windows ME and Windows 2000... yet they looked almost identical to the common user's eyes.
Parent
They could, but won't (and probably shouldn't) (Score:5, Informative)
But the kernel is neither Windows' biggest problem, nor Linux's greatest asset. By all accounts, the Windows NT kernel is (or at least started out as) a very clean, modular microkernel system. It was built with a POSIX compatibility layer, and actually can host a traditional Unix userspace (and does, if you install the MS "Unix Services" package). On the other hand, Linux is a very straightforward, unexceptional reimplementation of a standard, monolithic Unix kernel, which has become very popular more or less because it works, it is free, and it was there when people needed it. Its novelty is that it allowed for the first complete Free Unix-like system (while *BSD was still in legal limbo). Microsoft could take that kernel, and modify it to run Windows, and neither they, nor we (Linux users), would gain anything...Microsoft would get an operating system more or less like what they have now, except with a pesky kernel under a free-software license, and we would get another version of Windows, which might, with the installation of an X11 server and a raft of libraries, be able to run Linux software, not that anyone would want to.
If Microsoft tries to "embrace and extend" Unix, they probably won't use Linux, or BSD for that matter. Unlike Apple several years ago, they already have a modern kernel. According to another recent Slashdot story, they are already trying to build a new shell environment based on the existing "Unix services" package, and probably running under the
What an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really supposed to take someone who says something like this seriously:
"Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe."
Clearly the NT kernel is just a big lie, just like NASA never went to the moon. Thank you, Cringely, you have shown me the light!
And what the hell does he mean by "a disk operating system is hiding there"?? Please, someone, give him a non-disk operating system and see how far he gets after all his drives disappear.
Besides, it's not the NT kernel that's the problem, it's all the crap MS has put around it.
Cringly is poorly informed (Score:5, Informative)
Now you know why they call him Cringely... (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone is missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cringley isn't an idiot. You may not agree with what he's saying, you may think that he doesn't understand what an OS is, you may even think that Microsoft would never follow that course, but he isn't an idiot.
He is talking about Microsoft doing _exactly_ the same thing that Apple has done with OSX (use someone else's OS), except with Linux instead of BSD. Five years ago, would anyone have thought that Apple would use someone else's OS to run their UI? Heresy!
Is it going to be as easy as simply porting a windowing system? No Way! Does he understand that? Most certainly.
What he is saying is that Microsoft has demonstrated that it doesn't _need_ to control the underlying OS in order to get everyone to think that they're running the show on the desktop.
He points out the benefits of moving to Linux or even BSD. Would replacing XP/NT/9X as the OS remove MFC .NET, C#, DirectX or any other API? Nope, it would just use the underlying OS differently. In fact, Wine has done a lot of this already...
Would Microsoft ever do it? Doubtful, but then I would have sworn that Apple would never use BSD...
Jason Pollock
Re:Everyone is missing the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
In some respects he's right, but accidentally (a stopped clock is right twice a day), in that Windows is built on top of another operating system, in this case, NT. But to transition to another base there are three questions that would have to be answered:
Is it possible? Not without a lot of modification to Linux. NT is not UNIX and has a number of fundamentally different idioms; while Win32 abstracts a lot of this, it still pokes through in a few places. Even if Microsoft implemented features in the Linux kernel necessary, they'd still be forced to deprecate half the API and force developers to rewrite their applications to take full advantage of the new architecture. And if they rewrote Linux enough to make this unnecessary, it wouldn't be Linux anymore - it'd be an NT rewrite.
Would it be better? Cringley simply assumes that Linux is faster, more stable, etc... than NT. Windows is notorious for being unstable, although most of that reputation is due to the Win9x line. Win2K/XP have been known to crash on occasion, but unless you're using some seriously broken hardware, or have fucked its internals up a lot, it doesn't crash that often, and even then the vast majority of crashes are due to the Win32 layer, not NT itself. NT has a stronger security model, is realtime and fully reentrant. In short, the problems with Windows 2000/XP are not the fault of NT, but Win32 itself. Exactly how would porting Win32 to Linux solve these problem?
Would it be economic? The marginal benefit of porting to Linux would be minimal, and at great expense. I can't see how Microsoft would justify it.
Cringley suggested something that is fundamentally highly technical without understanding the real issues involved, which was stupid. This is particularly ironic when you consider the section of his site saying that people should listen to him since he knows what he's talking about. Once again this simply proves that he's nothing more than a digital snake-oil salesman - under the guise of holding an expert opinion, he tells people what they want to hear in exchange for ratings.
Parent
Re:Everyone is missing the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that Apple has always been a friendly company - not friendly to everyone, of course, they have to protect their investments, but I look at it this way: Apple may be a 'corporation', which is evil to some, and they may not GPL every line of code ever written, which is evil to others, but they're not anti-competetive (as if they have a chance), and they're not anti-user. MS, on the other hand, is very anti-competetive, and very anti-user. All their software assumes that you're a lying, cheating, thieving bastard, and spies on everything you do. Nice.
MS makes their money by doing what's best for the company. Apple makes their money by doing what's best for the users. What MS doesn't realize is that in the short term, being a jerk is great, but in the long term, Apple's the one who's going to come out on top.
The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that Apple went with BSD because it was the smart thing to do, it was the clever thing to do, and it's paid off big time already. MS will never go with Linux, because then they don't control everything. They can't control Linux kernel development, they can't control apps, they can't control APIs, they can't control hardware, they can't control much of anything, because they'd always have to give the source back. Companies wouldn't want to write Linux drivers, because binary drivers generally suck, and source drivers don't leave a lot of room for trade secrets. MS requires power-control.
Apple, on the other hand, opened the source, but still keeps a leash on it, in a small sense, and they control the hardware as well, plus the overlying APIs, but Apple's control is quality control, and no one's going to take their quality away from them just by having the source.
--Dan
Parent
The Truth... (Score:5, Funny)
No because I hate Microsoft and I refuse to see any good that could come from it.
MS used to sell UNIX (Score:5, Insightful)
This will NOT happen.
It's a shame to see MS take things it definately knows about and reinvent them poorly. They knew about UNIX crypt passwords, but went ahead and made the LM hash for passwords but neglected the salt value used in UNIX crypt to prevent parallel cracking of the entire password file. They later saw some of thier problems and came up with the NT hash based on UNIX md5 passwords (but using the md4 hash), again neglecting the UNIX salt. I'm a security systems guy, so maybe it just happens that MS only reinvented poorly the stuff I'm knowledgable about. Using off-the-shelf MIT-liscenced (similar to X11 liscence) Kerberos instead of making up their own networking authentication protocols and having to revise them when they realize they designed them poorly.
It was a good idea for them to try and make NT a microkernel OS, but it didn't end up working out. It's a shame they didn't reinvent the filesystem as a unified virtual filesystem with C:, D:, etc. being symbolic links for legacy purposes. Oh well.
Separation of operating system and windowing (Score:5, Interesting)
More and more junk has been going into the kernel ever since. The multimedia codecs have moved into the Win2000/XP kernel, for example. Start coding your viruses now.
Article makes me cringe (Score:5, Informative)
Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.
What a bunch of crap! So there is still a "disk operating system" under Linux because I can open a shell window, too? Man, what are you talking about?
DOS 7.1 brought the FAT32 file system to Win95, not the other way around
So what, FAT32 is a file system, and now - ? What does that say about the operating system? Nothing? Right.
Windows XP is not an operating system. It is a windowing system that sits atop an operating system much as KDE or Gnome sit atop Linux.
What's this guy's definition of an operating system? First, Windows has its OWN KERNEL (microkernel, btw). Second, it has its OWN DEVICE DRIVER and SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE. While I can agree that KDE/Gnome do a fairly large and important part of the work that non-Linux OSes provide as a whole package, Windows is doing ALL THE STUFF an OS does with *no* underlying foreign kernel or architecture.
The history of DR-DOS is especially interesting because it went through so many hands. [....]
Blah, blah, blah... where's all that DOS talk supposed to get us? Does it really make sense to talk about legacy crap like that? And if so, should we really begin to talk about text-mode-only Linux, from back in the days, also? What about legacy mainframe interfaces? Why? To prove the point that DOS is underlying of Windows just as Linux is the underlying architecture to KDE? WTF???
Now back to Microsoft putting Windows on top of Linux. Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve.
Give me a break here! Driver support for Windows often leads to much better performance (because PC manufacturers really cater to the Windows monopoly).
Apple has made a virtue of doing exactly this with MacOS-X, heralding its Mach kernel and BSD roots. Couldn't Microsoft do the same?
MacOS-X is a completely new system, it has a legacy-app compatibility layer (like Wine is for Linux) but otherwise it's a complete new system. And, they HAD to do it, because OS 9 and below where such utter crap (from a purely technical point of view, mind you). If MS where to switch (for whatever stupid reasons) to a *nix kernel like BSD or Linux they would have to provide a complete legacy Windows version inside the new system just to provide backwards-compatibility. And boy would *that* be slow! And, again, why??? It would mean to develop *LOADS* of new device drivers and APIs - for what?
I could go on like this forever. Articles like that make me want to puke. It would be suicide for MS if they did something like that, especially now, the first time they have a workable OS with Win2000/XP. Why oh why?
OK, I asked for it. Bomb me, I don't really care. Cringely articles I actually liked them in the past, but what the fuck is this load of crap supposed to be?
Re:sure (Score:4, Insightful)
95% of the world would be several billion people.
There are not several billion people running Windows. There are not even a billion people running Windows.
There are not even a billion people with computers.
Parent
Re:Maybe this is simplifying it too much but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple was willing to almost completely drop backwards compatibility. Microsoft's entire monopoly is based on backwards compatibility. If they were to say that the next version of Windows wouldn't be able to run most current programs, you would see their share of the desktop market instantly drop like a rock.
Parent