4 ms·
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 ma
by lake99 7y 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 7y agoWhy 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 7y agoBut 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?
- pmilot 7y agoExcept 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.
- acct1771 7y agoThe classic EEE strategy is to "extinguish" the desirability of the open source offering compared to the perceived trick MS stuff, so the community shifts to the commercial offering.
- comex 7y agoOther replies have contested your use of the EEE metaphor, but I think it’s important to look at why Google seems to want to get off Linux. There are a few, but the biggest one seems to be the intentional lack of a stable driver API/ABI. That’s historically been a large part of the reason Android devices haven’t received software updates, since SoC manufacturers make their own “vendor trees” of the entire Linux kernel, and all kernel updates have to go through them. Recently with Project Treble they’ve tried to make things more modular; AFAIK it’s made it easier to apply small changes like security updates, but if you want to update Linux to a new major version, you’re still at the mercy of the vendor. Now, if you ask upstream, that’s the vendors’ own fault for not upstreaming all their drivers so that upstream can maintain them for them – but upstreaming drivers is hard, and it doesn’t mesh well with the (crappy) hardware development culture of proprietary and one-off designs, so they don’t do it. In contrast, Windows and macOS both have stable ABIs for third-party drivers, with the result that you can upgrade your OS to the latest version and install the same drivers and they’ll probably work. One notable exception was the Windows XP to Vista transition, which made a number of breaking changes that required new drivers… and just look how that turned out. If Microsoft switched Windows to the Linux kernel, well… To start off, of course, there‘d be a one-time break of all existing drivers; popular devices already have equivalents in or for mainline Linux, but there’s a very long “long tail” of devices that don’t. But even more importantly, they’d be opting into the Android model of periodic breakage for perpetuity. In theory, they might be able to avoid that problem by forking the kernel and adding their own stable APIs on top. But that would require such deep changes that the resulting fork would either (a) have an “abstraction layer” big and complex enough to be a kernel of its own, (b) be unable to keep up with upstream refactorings and thus diverge permanently and rapidly from mainline, negating the benefit of adopting Linux in the first place… or, most likely, both of those. Never mind the amount of engineering effort required to build that, compared to maintaining the kernel they have. Or the licensing issues they’d encounter in an ecosystem that’s currently even more proprietary-oriented than Android. Or the control they’d be giving up over future development directions (although to be fair, you could have said the same about Edge). So yes, Microsoft could embrace Linux as their new kernel. But they’d be crazy if they did.
- cwyers 7y ago> What could Microsoft create for which Microsoft Linux would be an option so compelling that companies would pay money to buy Microsoft Linux? Single-source licensing for enterprise-grade Linux and Windows, with a sweetheart deal. And they wouldn't have to do much, just take RHEL and offer certified builds and support. (Which is what Oracle does with their Unbreakable Linux.)
- mimixco 7y agoIf it looked like Windows,shared files with Windows, and ran Windows apps (via emulation or virtualization) that would be a huge deal in keeping companies on MS platforms, even if they're Linux underneath.
- mixmastamyk 7y agoIt might be useful. Novell did that with Netware, and things didn’t go so well. But they didn’t have cloud revenue.
- lake99 7y agoGood point. The market segment of keeping companies on MS platforms is one I had not considered. That will certainly contribute to Linux not gaining a marketshare, and possibly fragment the overall Linux developers' ecosystem.
- mimixco 7y agoIMHO, this is the strategy. MS can't extinguish Linux; it's too late for that. But they can make it invisible and a "non-issue" for users. That would be a big deal and arguably better for everyone. Pretty smart, Microsoft.
- martamorena 7y agoYou know how expensive it is to write a Kernel? I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft will ditch their own Kernel just as they ditched their own browser engine... Why waste time and money on something that other people do equally well or better for you for free? It's just business....