4 ms·
haha i wish Microsoft would just rebase Windows on Linux: extract the Windows "experience"(sic) into a UI/Desktop Environment for Linux and then bless some LTS
by gigatexal 4y ago
haha i wish Microsoft would just rebase Windows on Linux: extract the Windows "experience"(sic) into a UI/Desktop Environment for Linux and then bless some LTS of Linux as the underlying system and call it a day.
Of course they would never, ever do that, but I can hope however hopeless that is.
- petesergeant 4y agoIs there a specific benefit you think that would bring?
- whstl 4y agoNot the person you asked, but: this would certainly bring more benefits to Linux and its users/community than to Microsoft...
- gigatexal 4y agowell for one it'd be free. You'd get the windows experience without having to pay a license. It'd be based on a userland and kernel that is open source. And the UI would be hackable (if it were opened up). Those 3 reasons are huge imo
- pjmlp 4y agoWhy bother when we can enjoy an OpenVMS descendent instead.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y agoWhy do people on Hacker News dislike the Windows kernel so much, without knowing a gram about the innards of Windows? All you lot see is the Windows shell, which is fairly trivial to replace (ergo why it has changed so often in the past 30 years since NT 3.1). Windows NT is a remarkably modular kernel architecture, with design decisions far ahead of its time. Things like (acronym overload here) COM, (A)LPC, UMDF, Windows subsystems (for Linux and Android), and an absolutely immense media and utilities ecosystem: Direct3D, DirectWrite, WASAPI, etc. Why not hope Microsoft open-sources the entire Windows stack including the NT kernel, NTFS drivers, and the Windows API, rather than hope it 'uses Linux'? > Windows "experience"(sic) into a UI/Desktop Environment for Linux And for the record, this more-or-less already exists: it's called KDE Plasma Desktop 5.
- revelio 4y agoThe Windows kernel really isn't that great by modern standards, neither codewise nor architecturally. And yes I know a lot about it. There's a LOT of weird stuff lurking in there, and a lot of features they've added in recent years just doesn't work properly at all (anything uwp related...). Even the basics of how you start another process have turned into a labyrinthine mess. Then you have things they never fixed like the totally unhelpful NT file locking semantics that regularly break apps that work fine on UNIX. NTFS is supposedly a nightmare of tech debt that uses SEH for control flow, yet their attempt to move Windows to a new ReFS stalled and failed. Note: Apple managed this with APFS and Linux distros have routinely introduced new file systems. COM isn't a part of the kernel but is the same situation - incredibly complicated and has not been evolved well. Lots of failed rebrands, attempts to rejuvinate it that actually made things worse.
- manicennui 4y agoIs the Linux kernel really that great?
- gigatexal 4y agoI think it is. Others might not. But it being open is the best part.
- wongarsu 4y agoThe Windows kernel is radically different from Unix-likes. Doing anything like this would cause a riot from anyone depending on any of the Windows-only features, which is pretty much all Enterprise customers.
- gigatexal 4y agoA rosetta/wine layer to run legacy things could bridge this gap.