4 ms·
In what world would that make any sense? Like, seriously, how did you get from "Microsoft is pushing ads into the OS they own so they earn more" to "That means
by izacus 4y ago
In what world would that make any sense? Like, seriously, how did you get from "Microsoft is pushing ads into the OS they own so they earn more" to "That means that they are spending money to rebuild their OS on top of another OS they don't own" ?
- Lutger 4y agoEarn ads mean they don't need to make money with the OS itself anymore, which means they can give it away for free, which means its important for it to be cheap, which means its better to use something free and built on top. Not sure I agree with the logic, but this is what I imagine the reasoning is. I don't think the reasoning applies when you still have market dominance, and MS still does on the desktop.
- izacus 4y agoI also doubt it applies when you need to pay thousands of engineering ours to rebuild your OS on top of another kernel... despite already owning said OS and said OS being complete and stable.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoI'm suddenly imagining Microsoft abandoning the Windows kernel and switching to a full Linux kernel in the future. At that point, Windows would just become another Linux distro. We could finally talk about it being the year of the Linux desktop without it being a meme. On one hand, it could mean MS could lay off a TON of staff since they don't have to maintain their own kernel and can rely on open source. On the other, it would likely mean that software designed for Windows could now easily be run on any other Linux distro with little work. For many people (especially gamers), there'd be no reason to use Windows anymore. It's a pipe dream, for sure. If it happened, wouldn't it require MS to open source Windows, especially if they made their own modifications to the Linux kernel?