4 ms·

Looks like everyone dislikes the fact that Linux is only popular on an `non-free' Operating System; But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that m

Looks like everyone dislikes the fact that Linux is only popular on an `non-free' Operating System; But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the big deal. It's something like Emacs for Windows and Emacs for macOS, allowing gcc running on other (non-free) platforms, because they show other people how free software `tastes'. Additionally, this makes Microsoft directly benefit from the Linux kernel and the software ecosystem; which will motivate Microsoft to invest resources on Linux.

ekianjo 8y ago
> But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the big deal. The problem is that it does nothing to ensure the viability of Linux as a Desktop alternative. The more people will feel at home "in Windows" even to develop Linux headless applications, the less incentive there will be to run Linux Desktop. It might very well end up being a net negative in terms of alternatives for the end user.
- pcr910303 8y ago
  What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? If you run a (free) Linux kernel and (free) Linux software, why can't that be considered as Linux Desktop? What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm?
  - shrimp_emoji 8y ago
    >What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? - You must pay hundreds of dollars to Microsoft - You must tacitly agree with Microsoft's ToS/EULA - You must endure whatever Microsoft decides you need to (surveillance, forced reboots, etc.) In short, you're under corporate hegemony. Game-theoretically, it's pretty sad for you as the user[0]. You're shackled to this company not even due to the superiority of its products but the massive coordination problem that is that people collectively settled on an inertial default and the entire [consumer-facing side of the] industry sclerotically built up around that default. >Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm? TL;DR yes >What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? I use tons of non-free software on Linux though (games, cloud software, etc.). To me, "Linux Desktop" means "desktop running a Linux distro". I assume parent's saying, "If people who would otherwise be burdened with dual-booting into Linux to do something like use Bash can now use Bash in Windows or Chrome OS, they'll stay on Windows and Chrome OS instead of Linux." ... I guess that's a valid anxiety. But if developers are encouraged by this to develop stuff that works on Linux because it'll now somehow work in Windows, to me that's a win -- Linux gets more dev-incentive. 0: https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ
  - ryukafalz 8y ago
    They're not just running side-by-side though; the Linux kernel is virtualized, with Windows being the ultimate authority. WSL gives you a little box of software freedom, but outside that box the usual rules apply: you're not allowed to look and you're certainly not allowed to change how it works. And Windows can collect whatever telemetry it wants on the running Linux instance, if MS chooses to do so.
  - overgard 8y ago
    > What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? I think a decent working definition would be that the platform layer of the system is all free software (Kernel + Windowing System + Shell + Drivers, etc.), but user-space applications are whatever the user chooses. > What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? Well, arguably, you don't know what's in there, how it's using your network bandwidth, if it's sharing your personal data, etc. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist, obviously microsoft has a lot of eyes on them and it'd be detrimental for them to do something against user's trust, but that would be the argument)
- tracker1 8y ago
  It allows those who would otherwise continue to develop Windows-only to also develop and test for Linux. This does not remove the Linux option, it makes it an option. Try changing your perspective a little. Where I work right now has in the past been Windows-only development. On my current project, most of the app not tied to a legacy system is cross-platform. If at least Docker didn't run via Windows, this would NOT have happened or even been an option. Another two projects are expressly supporting Linux deployments. Again, if Linux via windows didn't work, wouldn't have happened. Not every person/company can just abandon all their in-house custom software that cost millions of dollars to create, and would be tens of millions to replace overnight.
quantummkv 8y ago
> But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the big deal. The kind software development that WSL is allowing is already targeted towards the Linux servers. It does not increase the market share of Linux Servers at all, nor that of Windows Server. This is just an attempt by Microsoft to stem the flow of power users to Linux Desktop. WSL is effectively trying to kill the Linux Desktop. All the major Linux desktops (GNOME, KDE, etc) are making great strides in recent times because a lot focus is shifting to them due to the paper cuts Windows 10 has. The Linux software that need improving are the desktop userlands, and predictably WSL does not help that. For all the new and improved Microsoft "hearts" Linux talks, it just showed that it is still the same Halloween company. The even worse part is seeing all those twitter thought leaders behaving as if this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. For me personally, I am not doubting Stallman ever again.
- spudlyo 8y ago
  This is just an attempt by Microsoft to stem the flow of power users to Linux Desktop. Did you see the flash video advertisement[0] Microsoft made for their new terminal? To me it feels more like Microsoft is trying to attract people fleeing from macOS because of all their recent mis-steps with the MBP. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gw0rXPMMPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gw0rXPMMPE
  - quantummkv 8y ago
    Those people would have landed at Linux because of bash, posix and all the unix underpinnings allowing them to preserve big parts of their workflow. My point still stands.

ekianjo 8y ago

> But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the big deal. The problem is that it does nothing to ensure the viability of Linux as a Desktop alternative. The more people will feel at home "in Windows" even to develop Linux headless applications, the less incentive there will be to run Linux Desktop. It might very well end up being a net negative in terms of alternatives for the end user.

pcr910303 8y ago
What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? If you run a (free) Linux kernel and (free) Linux software, why can't that be considered as Linux Desktop? What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm?
- shrimp_emoji 8y ago
  >What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? - You must pay hundreds of dollars to Microsoft - You must tacitly agree with Microsoft's ToS/EULA - You must endure whatever Microsoft decides you need to (surveillance, forced reboots, etc.) In short, you're under corporate hegemony. Game-theoretically, it's pretty sad for you as the user[0]. You're shackled to this company not even due to the superiority of its products but the massive coordination problem that is that people collectively settled on an inertial default and the entire [consumer-facing side of the] industry sclerotically built up around that default. >Is it the usual everything-should-be-free-and-non-free-is-evil paradigm? TL;DR yes >What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? I use tons of non-free software on Linux though (games, cloud software, etc.). To me, "Linux Desktop" means "desktop running a Linux distro". I assume parent's saying, "If people who would otherwise be burdened with dual-booting into Linux to do something like use Bash can now use Bash in Windows or Chrome OS, they'll stay on Windows and Chrome OS instead of Linux." ... I guess that's a valid anxiety. But if developers are encouraged by this to develop stuff that works on Linux because it'll now somehow work in Windows, to me that's a win -- Linux gets more dev-incentive. 0: https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ https://youtu.be/pgY7qYaoMWQ
- ryukafalz 8y ago
  They're not just running side-by-side though; the Linux kernel is virtualized, with Windows being the ultimate authority. WSL gives you a little box of software freedom, but outside that box the usual rules apply: you're not allowed to look and you're certainly not allowed to change how it works. And Windows can collect whatever telemetry it wants on the running Linux instance, if MS chooses to do so.
- overgard 8y ago
  > What is exactly Linux Desktop? Isn't Linux Desktop = Linux Kernel + Mostly Free Software? I think a decent working definition would be that the platform layer of the system is all free software (Kernel + Windowing System + Shell + Drivers, etc.), but user-space applications are whatever the user chooses. > What is the downside of an additionally-running Windows kernel? Well, arguably, you don't know what's in there, how it's using your network bandwidth, if it's sharing your personal data, etc. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist, obviously microsoft has a lot of eyes on them and it'd be detrimental for them to do something against user's trust, but that would be the argument)
tracker1 8y ago
It allows those who would otherwise continue to develop Windows-only to also develop and test for Linux. This does not remove the Linux option, it makes it an option. Try changing your perspective a little. Where I work right now has in the past been Windows-only development. On my current project, most of the app not tied to a legacy system is cross-platform. If at least Docker didn't run via Windows, this would NOT have happened or even been an option. Another two projects are expressly supporting Linux deployments. Again, if Linux via windows didn't work, wouldn't have happened. Not every person/company can just abandon all their in-house custom software that cost millions of dollars to create, and would be tens of millions to replace overnight.

quantummkv 8y ago

> But I consider that also as a success to Linux... as that means that people who feel like home at Windows can also develop Linux Software, and that's the big deal. The kind software development that WSL is allowing is already targeted towards the Linux servers. It does not increase the market share of Linux Servers at all, nor that of Windows Server. This is just an attempt by Microsoft to stem the flow of power users to Linux Desktop. WSL is effectively trying to kill the Linux Desktop. All the major Linux desktops (GNOME, KDE, etc) are making great strides in recent times because a lot focus is shifting to them due to the paper cuts Windows 10 has. The Linux software that need improving are the desktop userlands, and predictably WSL does not help that. For all the new and improved Microsoft "hearts" Linux talks, it just showed that it is still the same Halloween company. The even worse part is seeing all those twitter thought leaders behaving as if this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. For me personally, I am not doubting Stallman ever again.

spudlyo 8y ago
This is just an attempt by Microsoft to stem the flow of power users to Linux Desktop. Did you see the flash video advertisement[0] Microsoft made for their new terminal? To me it feels more like Microsoft is trying to attract people fleeing from macOS because of all their recent mis-steps with the MBP. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gw0rXPMMPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gw0rXPMMPE
- quantummkv 8y ago
  Those people would have landed at Linux because of bash, posix and all the unix underpinnings allowing them to preserve big parts of their workflow. My point still stands.