6 ms·

> Microsoft’s integration of Linux in Windows 10 will interface with a userspace installed via the Windows Store... Given Microsoft's history, I can't help but

by cs702 8y ago

> Microsoft’s integration of Linux in Windows 10 will interface with a userspace installed via the Windows Store... Given Microsoft's history, I can't help but wonder if this wholehearted embrace of Linux is part of a classic Microsoft embrace-extend-extinguish strategy.[a] Is the endgame a Windows-only userspace layered on top of the Linux kernel? [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Quiark 8y ago
I don't think they care about Windows that much any more. They even dissolved the team and it's now a part of Azure team / Office team.
- hestefisk 8y ago
  “Don’t care” is probably a stretch. There is still a ton of corporates who pay MS license feee for Windows. It’s still a huge part of core revenue, but future long term. revenue streams will come from services and new platforms.
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    I think those corporations care more about ADS and all the user management infrastructure than they do about Windows desktop. If they could manage Linux desktops with group policy settings they wouldn’t need Windows at all.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      All it takes is one application that's Windows-only and a lot of places are locked in. And maybe it's an app that isn't made anymore, or maybe it's an internal line-of-business app with no ready off-the-shelf replacement.
      - kelnos 8y ago
        That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, though. They wouldn't kill the Win32/Win64 APIs or anything else that people tend to write Windows applications to, they would just replace NT with Linux and adapt the Windows APIs to run on Linux (basically WINE, but presumably Microsoft could do a more complete/compatible job due to all the institutional knowledge they have). Some apps still wouldn't work, like anything that calls NT APIs, but they could make that work with a compatibility layer until they're ported. I agree that this seems a bit unlikely, though. But who knows where their priorities may lie in the future?
        cwyers 8y ago
        Okay, flip it around -- how many places are using a piece of hardware that doesn't have a proper Linux driver? How many people are still using laptops where Linux has problems with sleep/hibernate? And where do the benefits of using the Linux kernel come from?
        kelnos 7y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with this at all. Merely addressing the point made about what most apps are written using.
        wbl 8y ago
        NT was the best part!
      - hestefisk 8y ago
        A significant amount of businesses worldwide are still run on Excel sheets and Access databases on SMB fileshares. Combine that with an insane amount of VBA code and you have something it is very hard to justify why you should spend time and money porting or virtualising when you can just keep it running on Windows. I work with very large banks and insurers and see this everywhere. Justify effort / cost / risk / benefits of that vs investing in new customer / ‘digital’ stuff that will actually sell more.
lake99 8y ago
They can embrace Linux, but they can't extend it in any meaningful way. By which I mean they can't ever create a Microsoft brand of packaged Linux. The Linux marketshare is already flooded with distros, and any software that earns revenue running on Linux runs on all the major distros more or less equally well. What could Microsoft create for which Microsoft Linux would be an option so compelling that companies would pay money to buy Microsoft Linux? For example, MS could create a whole new graphical alternative to X and Wayland that works better than them both. Their challenge for capitalizing on that would be to create a software that works only somewhat well on X or Wayland, but works perfectly on MS Linux. I predict the Linux crowd will not use it. At best, they'll end up providing an alternative for the benefit of MS aficionados.
- dleslie 8y ago
  Why not? Google did it. Android was an embracing of Linux, they extended it with Google Play Services, and now they're moving toward extinguishing it.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    But that doesn't negatively impact all the prior uses of Linux. The "extinguish" part means that they ruin Linux for everyone else. If Google stops using Linux as the kernel for Android... so what?
    - ufo 8y ago
      The embrace-extend-extinguish approach deprived us from non-Android (and non-Google) Linux on smartphones.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Try to get a pure GNU/Linux phone, that the market actually cares about.
  - pmilot 8y ago
    Except they are not extinguishing Linux as a whole, simply phasing it out of their own OS offerings. Linux itself is still alive and thriving, and will continue as such even after it has been replaced in Android and/or its successor. The classic EEE strategy aims to eliminate a competitor entirely. If that was Google's plan (which I doubt), it was doomed to fail from the start.
cwyers 8y ago
...why? In the consumer/desktop hardware space, Windows has much, much better driver support. What benefit would they get from this?
userbinator 8y ago
I'm feeling more like they want to inject their invasive "telemetry" into Linux too, or at least "normalise the deviance". I see their whole "we're open-source now" (mainly, open-sourcing code they can't really profit from anymore) and "friendly" face as merely trying to divert attention away from their darker side.

by cs702 8y ago

Quiark 8y ago

I don't think they care about Windows that much any more. They even dissolved the team and it's now a part of Azure team / Office team.

hestefisk 8y ago
“Don’t care” is probably a stretch. There is still a ton of corporates who pay MS license feee for Windows. It’s still a huge part of core revenue, but future long term. revenue streams will come from services and new platforms.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  I think those corporations care more about ADS and all the user management infrastructure than they do about Windows desktop. If they could manage Linux desktops with group policy settings they wouldn’t need Windows at all.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    All it takes is one application that's Windows-only and a lot of places are locked in. And maybe it's an app that isn't made anymore, or maybe it's an internal line-of-business app with no ready off-the-shelf replacement.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, though. They wouldn't kill the Win32/Win64 APIs or anything else that people tend to write Windows applications to, they would just replace NT with Linux and adapt the Windows APIs to run on Linux (basically WINE, but presumably Microsoft could do a more complete/compatible job due to all the institutional knowledge they have). Some apps still wouldn't work, like anything that calls NT APIs, but they could make that work with a compatibility layer until they're ported. I agree that this seems a bit unlikely, though. But who knows where their priorities may lie in the future?
      - cwyers 8y ago
        Okay, flip it around -- how many places are using a piece of hardware that doesn't have a proper Linux driver? How many people are still using laptops where Linux has problems with sleep/hibernate? And where do the benefits of using the Linux kernel come from?
        kelnos 7y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with this at all. Merely addressing the point made about what most apps are written using.
      - wbl 8y ago
        NT was the best part!
    - hestefisk 8y ago
      A significant amount of businesses worldwide are still run on Excel sheets and Access databases on SMB fileshares. Combine that with an insane amount of VBA code and you have something it is very hard to justify why you should spend time and money porting or virtualising when you can just keep it running on Windows. I work with very large banks and insurers and see this everywhere. Justify effort / cost / risk / benefits of that vs investing in new customer / ‘digital’ stuff that will actually sell more.

lake99 8y ago

They can embrace Linux, but they can't extend it in any meaningful way. By which I mean they can't ever create a Microsoft brand of packaged Linux. The Linux marketshare is already flooded with distros, and any software that earns revenue running on Linux runs on all the major distros more or less equally well. What could Microsoft create for which Microsoft Linux would be an option so compelling that companies would pay money to buy Microsoft Linux? For example, MS could create a whole new graphical alternative to X and Wayland that works better than them both. Their challenge for capitalizing on that would be to create a software that works only somewhat well on X or Wayland, but works perfectly on MS Linux. I predict the Linux crowd will not use it. At best, they'll end up providing an alternative for the benefit of MS aficionados.

dleslie 8y ago
Why not? Google did it. Android was an embracing of Linux, they extended it with Google Play Services, and now they're moving toward extinguishing it.
- kelnos 8y ago
  But that doesn't negatively impact all the prior uses of Linux. The "extinguish" part means that they ruin Linux for everyone else. If Google stops using Linux as the kernel for Android... so what?
  - ufo 8y ago
    The embrace-extend-extinguish approach deprived us from non-Android (and non-Google) Linux on smartphones.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Try to get a pure GNU/Linux phone, that the market actually cares about.
- pmilot 8y ago
  Except they are not extinguishing Linux as a whole, simply phasing it out of their own OS offerings. Linux itself is still alive and thriving, and will continue as such even after it has been replaced in Android and/or its successor. The classic EEE strategy aims to eliminate a competitor entirely. If that was Google's plan (which I doubt), it was doomed to fail from the start.

cwyers 8y ago

...why? In the consumer/desktop hardware space, Windows has much, much better driver support. What benefit would they get from this?

userbinator 8y ago

I'm feeling more like they want to inject their invasive "telemetry" into Linux too, or at least "normalise the deviance". I see their whole "we're open-source now" (mainly, open-sourcing code they can't really profit from anymore) and "friendly" face as merely trying to divert attention away from their darker side.