3 ms·
>We need another closed-source unix/linux-based operating system that throws away X.org and its attempted modern replacements, that can directly compete with OS
by rl3 10y ago
>We need another closed-source unix/linux-based operating system that throws away X.org and its attempted modern replacements, that can directly compete with OS X.
In context of laptops, Microsoft is in a position to kick serious ass on this front should they wish to. Their Surface hardware line is vastly superior to Apple at the moment.
Windows Subsystem For Linux (WSL) looks promising but is still in its infancy. Unfortunately it will likely have severe limitations for some time, and even then there's no escaping the fact it runs atop Windows.
In my opinion, there's a few rather crazy options:
1. Ship the Surface line with a hypervisor by default. Provide full official driver support for the hardware in both Windows and Linux environments. That means first-class Wacom support on Linux. Ditto power management, touchpad and wireless. Run Windows and Linux simultaneously, with interop support.
2. Reengineer the Windows kernel to update itself without the incessant need to reboot all the time. Windows Update is a piece of crap that needs to be replaced by a proper package manager anyways (at least under the hood). Then, double down on WSL until it's practically at parity with a real Linux install. Failing that, integrate a guest VM with full hardware acceleration and driver support.
3. Microsoft develops their own Linux distro and calls it Windows Developer Edition. Fuse the best parts of each OS together. Windows' existing graphics infrastructure ported as a desktop environment. Native D3D. Native Windows binaries. First-class driver support. A UI oriented towards pure modularity and customization.
I concede the third item is simply fantasy, but we can always dream.
- hobarrera 10y agoI don't get why people insist that the whole "bash on windows" things makes it a suitable replacement for Linux. It's like when people say "oh, but OS X has a terminal as well". I don't use Linux just because of the terminal. Package managers (and the ability to deterministically install/uninstall packages!!) are one of the strongest pilars. WMs I like are another (we'll each have a preference, mine bine i3wm). And finally, a [somewhat] sane, understandable filesystem hierarchy. Windows is still so, so far from all of those, that it's still not even close to being a suitable replacement.
- cube2222 10y agoIf you don't get it, try it. It's not just bash. It's the whole Ubuntu userspace. Yes, you can use apt-get there.
- 20after4 10y agobut it's _on windows_ so what's the point? :P
- pjmlp 10y agoA better OS stack, where devs are busy moving beyond C, has better asynchronous IO stack, kernel level thread pools, embraces a mixed architecture with separated kernel and personalities, driver crashes don't bring the OS down, embraced by the games and graphics communities, allows for multi-GPU usage ....
- danieldk 10y agoHardware support + you can run the Adobe suites, Microsoft Office, etc.? I think WSL will be very successful among developers. You can just get any laptop from the store that runs Windows 10 and have Linux running at native speed (except I/O, which is currently a bottleneck in WSL) at the same time without the hardware compatibility problems, etc.
- WayneBro 10y agoMore hardware support, more software, better software, more users... What's your point?
- hobarrera 10y agoSee my above reply for details to sibling comment, but basically, dumping a package manager on a running OS isn't the same as having a package manager to properly track installed apps. This apt-get will only track stuff installed via it, while there's dozens of other stuff that just made it in sideways. Also, ¿Can I run X, i3wm, etc? ¿Can I get rid of the entire Windows DE? My point is, I don't use bash, because I want all the above. I've no complaint if you prefer windows, that's your choice. But don't tell Linux users that windows is now the same just because you have bash.