4 ms·

Microsoft did everything, like everything and more, to kill every alternative platform on the planet. Hedging their bets with half-hearted posix support was pa

Microsoft did everything, like everything and more, to kill every alternative platform on the planet. Hedging their bets with half-hearted posix support was part of that effort. If not for that MSN vs Internet fiasco, they would succeed.

pjmlp 3y ago
I never liked that point of view, because while it is true they did their part, the OEMs and consumers also did theirs. Also as seen nowadays by many FAANG efforts, "do no evil" marketing stunts, Playstation and Nintendo with their exclusive deals, they are not alone in the desire to achieve that goal. Ironically, while UNIX won the server room, the Linux wars replacing the UNIX wars, is kind of what killed the desktop for most consumers, now enjoying the Linux kernel via Android, ChromeOS, and the free beer version of them, versus what OEMs make available isn't the same anyway. Or one pays what is seen as the Apple tax in countries where wages aren't at the same level as North America.
- vkazanov 3y ago
  Well, the problem with world domination plans (Microsoft included), is that every actor has one, and they don't necessarily, ehm, align. So the non-desktop part was lost by Microsoft, and this resulted in the world we have now, Linux derivatives and all. But for a while, sometime around 1996-2006, it definitely felt like they almost had it. This is when I began my official dev career and that summer I could barely find a non-MS stack shop. And yes, the OSS movement didn't manage to unify the desktop. And Microsoft has nothing to do with it. I still like the landscape much better.
simonh 3y ago
Many US government contracts required any operating systems purchased to be POSIX compliant, so MS had to be able to tick that box.
coldacid 3y ago
Nah, in those days everyone was either offering POSIX.1 support or even providing their own custom Unix distribution for their machines, because it was the only way to get US government contracts. This is why things like Amix, Atari UNIX, and A/UX existed at all, and why NT had to have an out-of-box POSIX subsystem.

pjmlp 3y ago

I never liked that point of view, because while it is true they did their part, the OEMs and consumers also did theirs. Also as seen nowadays by many FAANG efforts, "do no evil" marketing stunts, Playstation and Nintendo with their exclusive deals, they are not alone in the desire to achieve that goal. Ironically, while UNIX won the server room, the Linux wars replacing the UNIX wars, is kind of what killed the desktop for most consumers, now enjoying the Linux kernel via Android, ChromeOS, and the free beer version of them, versus what OEMs make available isn't the same anyway. Or one pays what is seen as the Apple tax in countries where wages aren't at the same level as North America.

vkazanov 3y ago
Well, the problem with world domination plans (Microsoft included), is that every actor has one, and they don't necessarily, ehm, align. So the non-desktop part was lost by Microsoft, and this resulted in the world we have now, Linux derivatives and all. But for a while, sometime around 1996-2006, it definitely felt like they almost had it. This is when I began my official dev career and that summer I could barely find a non-MS stack shop. And yes, the OSS movement didn't manage to unify the desktop. And Microsoft has nothing to do with it. I still like the landscape much better.

simonh 3y ago

Many US government contracts required any operating systems purchased to be POSIX compliant, so MS had to be able to tick that box.

coldacid 3y ago

Nah, in those days everyone was either offering POSIX.1 support or even providing their own custom Unix distribution for their machines, because it was the only way to get US government contracts. This is why things like Amix, Atari UNIX, and A/UX existed at all, and why NT had to have an out-of-box POSIX subsystem.