Microsoft is going to ship a full Linux kernel Win10

[rs55]

I think Windows is going to start losing market share at an accelerating clip - as more and more people discover the wonderful linux distros ( like MX).
Sure there will be those that need Adobe Photoshop , or certain games that will tolerate windows. But there are a LOT of people who can be happy with the existing apps available in linux ( I am).
Then - Adobe and others will need to figure out how to address the growing linux market.
Maybe one idea is AppImages. They could provide a non-free appimage for some apps. I would be fine with that.

[bobbee]

All those adobe and other products work on apple osx which is basically linux. I don't think that it should be that much of a stretch to also run them on linux.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

They might not be able to extinguish it, but they could influence changes in the core that would not be good for users or developers.

Peer review should prevent that, theoretically. All commits are visible after all — that's how the OpenBSD developers found out about Spectre & Meltdown before the embargo ended.

apple osx which is basically linux

No, OSX is based on FreeBSD, as I mentioned earlier.

The BSDs are not Linux, they are completely different operating systems with their own kernels.

[KBD]

Anyway, Microsoft have made consistent contributions to kernel development over several years and they are a Platinum member of the Linux Foundation:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

So I think we should all be thankful to MS for their efforts

Honestly, if Microsoft did not have such a dark history toward Linux, openly calling it a cancer and other fun things, I would not be so wary of the company. Nevertheless, if over time they prove they are no longer idiots I'd be pleased to see it. I think they would be smart to truly embrace open source, and I am sort of waiting for them to outright buy a Linux distro, may Ubuntu, not because they need to, but because it may be dawning on them that open source can end up making them money, and for selling services, the more users the better irregardless of the OS.

[Richard]

Like the adage,
"The enemy of my enemy Is my friend."

[Head_on_a_Stick]

I think they would be smart to truly embrace open source

They have already acknowledged that open source development produces better software than their traditional proprietary model, this is why they open-sourced the .NET framework.

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/platform/open-source

They also have a new terminal emulator for Windows and that is open source:

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandl ... -terminal/

And have you tried the Windows Subsystem for Linux? Version 2 is out now and much quicker (apparently).

[BitJam]

After the Halloween documents and having been on the front lines in the SCO Wars, I will never ever trust Microsoft in their relationship with FOSS. They secretly acknowledged the superiority of FOSS development back in the late 1990s along with dirty tricks they used to crush FOSS. They at least partially funded the SCO Wars against FOSS.

Have they finally turned a new leaf or have they just gotten more devious? How many times will Charlie Brown trust that Lucy is going to hold the football for him before he learns his lesson? How many times will you leave the Arden Forest weakly defended? Some FOSS luminaries, such as Daniel Robbins, gave Microsoft a chance and worked for them. But Robbins, at least, quit after less than a year.

If Microsoft had actually turned a new leaf then, for example, the would have switched to using GMT in the hardware clock over a decade ago. This is just one of the dozens of things they do that make it more difficult to install Linux on a Windows machine. It is insanely stupid to use local time in the hardware clock in the age of the internet. You may claim they are being insanely stupid but I believe they are not stupid and are still messing with us. I also think their war against FOSS is working and it is the only reason why Microsoft still dominates the desktop. Back in the late 1990s Microsoft acknowledged that they could not compete with us technically and their only hope was to fight dirty. Despite these latest fig-leaf olive-branches, I don't see anything in that situation that has changed.

[AK-47]

Honestly, if Microsoft did not have such a dark history toward Linux, openly calling it a cancer and other fun things, I would not be so wary of the company.

This was CEO Steve Ballmer calling Linux a cancer, and it was all back when Microsoft were run by the Gates/Ballmer duo.
A lot of notable changes have happened since Satya Nadella took the reigns so I'm willing to approach this with an open mind, albeit with maximum caution. I have noticed the focus is becoming less on Windows and more on cloud services and datacentre operations. Still, with millions of devices that can all be running Windows thanks to OEM agreements, and thousands more that can be upgraded, it would be unwise at the moment for Microsoft to ditch consumer Windows.

Nevertheless, if over time they prove they are no longer idiots I'd be pleased to see it.

Well for a start, they can learn how to count to 10 and they can learn to listen to users who don't want forced upgrades that break things. Also people need to vote with their wallets, as is what happened with Internet Explorer. Microsoft saw IE decline in usage because Firefox and Opera and other browsers were superior, and people went over to them. Microsoft eventually smartened up and tightened the security of IE and we got IE7. They then improved standards compliance, and we got IE8.

It is a bit harder with Windows, because it's pre-installed on hardware, but I have heard of cases where people managed to get a refund for their Windows licenses. Be wary of software that needs any runtimes from Microsoft as the EULA for those runtimes state that you can only run it on a computer with a Windows licence. I wonder how it can be enforced legally as a contract though, since nobody signs an agreement when they purchase a computer (any lawyers like to chime in?)

I think they would be smart to truly embrace open source, and I am sort of waiting for them to outright buy a Linux distro, may Ubuntu, not because they need to, but because it may be dawning on them that open source can end up making them money, and for selling services, the more users the better irregardless of the OS.

It probably won't be too long, and now that I think of it it wouldn't surprise me if this Linux kernel inclusion is a stepping stone towards it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense for a Linux kernel to be included with Windows, because almost no typical software these days runs exclusively on Linux, there are native Windows analog of it, even though it may not be the same software.

Now, as for GMT in the hardware clock, Windows 7 has a registry tweak that can be used to enable it. I can't remember what it is off the top of my head, but I use it on my system.

[Richard]

But, having a Linux kernel available should/may allow native execution of Linux applications.
That way, they can say, "We do it your way.",
or some other marketing phrase.

[rs55]

Chrome machines are going to natively run Debian going forward. And Google makes great software compared to MS. The way I see it - all these companies manage to get access to whatever user data they can. The issue is - do I get something of value in exchange? With chrome browser/gmail /contacts/keep / Maps etc - that is huge functionality I get from from Google. And it all works and works very well.
On the other hand - what do I get for hassling with windows? Nothing of value. ( well... I am not a gamer so I cant speak to games). Nothing that I cant get from a free linux installation.

I bet chromebooks running Debian are going to be hugely attractive - especially at the low prices for the hardware.