2 ms·

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

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)

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)