4 ms·

Microsoft will, in all likeliness, be shifting from the NT kernel to a unix-like kernel in the near-ish future. I wouldn't be too concerned.

mekster 6y ago
Would calculator quietly start working on top of WSL at some point?
childintime 6y ago
Why would they want to do that? Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum?
- echelon 6y ago
  > Why would they want to do that? Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum? The Unix kernel is one of the most widely deployed in the world. I don't think it's going anywhere in the next 100 years.
  - seabrookmx 6y ago
    > The Unix kernel Which one? Linux? By that logic Windows NT kernel won't go anywhere in 100 years either, since it runs on nearly a billion devices.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Neither is MVS going anywhere, even though it has evolved into z/OS. I'm pretty sure there will be a workloads running on NonStop well into the 21st century too. So, there's no reason to think we will be free of Windows anytime soon either.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - for_xyz 6y ago
    Linux was heavily inspired by Unix but it's not Unix in any sense. Rest of Unix certified implementations are however not widely deployed. I don't see many AIX, Solaris production machines anywhere since everyone often deploys Linux instead. Same story applies to *BSD family. The only thing that keeps the Unix identity on those system is the Posix interface which is also extremely outdated on modern systems and it's kept around as a legacy.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Linux is Unix in the sense it implements most of the same core ideas in a similar way. The same applies to macOS, which is a layer of BSD on top of a Mach microkernel. All those systems have much more in common between themselves than anything else.
      - razakel 6y ago
        macOS is actually a certified UNIX, the rest being enterprise OSes most people will never see.
- childintime 6y ago
  To the down-voters: you're so sensitive ;) Linux was conceived to protect users from other users, but these days users badly need protection from downloaded programs which can't be fully trusted. The features Linux has provide protection from other users. There are no other users on the desktop. On servers there are, many, and there is no untrusted code, so on the server Linux remains viable. Heck, even something as abject as shared code is still a thing on servers. But here we talk about the desktop. On the desktop Linux is simply unfit. The Unix style OS once was thought of as the pinnacle of software development. So some devs think it is offending to think of Linux as a dinosaur, and are sure to downvote.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > To the down-voters: you're so sensitive ;) It's not that they are sensitive. It's that you are so completely, ludicrously wrong that the overconfident tone is borderline offensive. > Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum? For it to be headed to the museum, there would need to be something better. Can you point us to it? > users badly need protection from downloaded programs which can't be fully trusted. Linux solved that issue decades ago. It's called a package manager and you should read about them. > There are no other users on the desktop Think on how browser exploits work. Come back when you understand it. > On the desktop Linux is simply unfit. So, what do you think is a better fit? Macs?
    - childintime 6y ago
      Package managers do not magically solve the problem of malicious programs, just as their big brothers, app stores, don't. Of course you fully ignored the main point, which is that Linux protection features are completely out of sync with the needs of a modern single user desktop, being ballast instead of a benefit. In response you seem to enter panic mode. Your last line even denies me reasoning, as if I can't have an argument unless an alternative exists. So I guess you are exactly sensitive in the way I explained, presumptuously assuming Linux/Unix is the only true OS, employing the best minds, the winner. And more wishful and dangerous thinking like that. The fact is Linux doesn't care about the user unless he is the sysadmin. Linux is the sysadmin wet dream. But you know what? People hate the sysadmin, and don't want to be one. They do not buy the gospel, and ultimately that is because Linux is an ideal not of this time and age. Linux is a castle, not a house, not a place to live in. What a shocker the museum line must be.

mekster 6y ago

Would calculator quietly start working on top of WSL at some point?

childintime 6y ago

Why would they want to do that? Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum?

echelon 6y ago
> Why would they want to do that? Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum? The Unix kernel is one of the most widely deployed in the world. I don't think it's going anywhere in the next 100 years.
- seabrookmx 6y ago
  > The Unix kernel Which one? Linux? By that logic Windows NT kernel won't go anywhere in 100 years either, since it runs on nearly a billion devices.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Neither is MVS going anywhere, even though it has evolved into z/OS. I'm pretty sure there will be a workloads running on NonStop well into the 21st century too. So, there's no reason to think we will be free of Windows anytime soon either.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- for_xyz 6y ago
  Linux was heavily inspired by Unix but it's not Unix in any sense. Rest of Unix certified implementations are however not widely deployed. I don't see many AIX, Solaris production machines anywhere since everyone often deploys Linux instead. Same story applies to *BSD family. The only thing that keeps the Unix identity on those system is the Posix interface which is also extremely outdated on modern systems and it's kept around as a legacy.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Linux is Unix in the sense it implements most of the same core ideas in a similar way. The same applies to macOS, which is a layer of BSD on top of a Mach microkernel. All those systems have much more in common between themselves than anything else.
    - razakel 6y ago
      macOS is actually a certified UNIX, the rest being enterprise OSes most people will never see.
childintime 6y ago
To the down-voters: you're so sensitive ;) Linux was conceived to protect users from other users, but these days users badly need protection from downloaded programs which can't be fully trusted. The features Linux has provide protection from other users. There are no other users on the desktop. On servers there are, many, and there is no untrusted code, so on the server Linux remains viable. Heck, even something as abject as shared code is still a thing on servers. But here we talk about the desktop. On the desktop Linux is simply unfit. The Unix style OS once was thought of as the pinnacle of software development. So some devs think it is offending to think of Linux as a dinosaur, and are sure to downvote.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > To the down-voters: you're so sensitive ;) It's not that they are sensitive. It's that you are so completely, ludicrously wrong that the overconfident tone is borderline offensive. > Why adopt something that is on its way to the museum? For it to be headed to the museum, there would need to be something better. Can you point us to it? > users badly need protection from downloaded programs which can't be fully trusted. Linux solved that issue decades ago. It's called a package manager and you should read about them. > There are no other users on the desktop Think on how browser exploits work. Come back when you understand it. > On the desktop Linux is simply unfit. So, what do you think is a better fit? Macs?
  - childintime 6y ago
    Package managers do not magically solve the problem of malicious programs, just as their big brothers, app stores, don't. Of course you fully ignored the main point, which is that Linux protection features are completely out of sync with the needs of a modern single user desktop, being ballast instead of a benefit. In response you seem to enter panic mode. Your last line even denies me reasoning, as if I can't have an argument unless an alternative exists. So I guess you are exactly sensitive in the way I explained, presumptuously assuming Linux/Unix is the only true OS, employing the best minds, the winner. And more wishful and dangerous thinking like that. The fact is Linux doesn't care about the user unless he is the sysadmin. Linux is the sysadmin wet dream. But you know what? People hate the sysadmin, and don't want to be one. They do not buy the gospel, and ultimately that is because Linux is an ideal not of this time and age. Linux is a castle, not a house, not a place to live in. What a shocker the museum line must be.