5 ms·

About a month ago I heard Microsoft had their own Linux distribution to help Microsoft Windows users feel more at home. From memory, it was a rather simple GNOM

About a month ago I heard Microsoft had their own Linux distribution to help Microsoft Windows users feel more at home. From memory, it was a rather simple GNOME setup. Nothing special. I am surprised Micrsooft didnt use the opportunity to create a micrsoft specific Linux distro that replaces bash with powershell, or Edit with vim, nano and other choices as well as .NET and Visual Studio Code by developer installs. Micrsoft could have used this as their default WSL install. It may not have won the war against typical distro like Ubuntu or Debian but it could have gained a percentage and be a common choice for Windows users - and there are a lot of Windows users! Microsoft cannot dominate the Linux kernel but it can gain control in userland. Imagine if they gained traction with their applications being installed by default in popular distributions. This Microsoft Edit is available for Linux, like Powershell is and others. If they had played their cards right -- perhaps -- 10 years ago, their distribution could have been in the top 5 today, all because many windows users use it as their WSL. Giant companies (like M$) can inject their fingerprints into my personal space. Now, we just need Micrsooft Edit to have Co-Pilot on by default...

repler 1y ago
> I am surprised Micrsooft didnt use the opportunity to create a micrsoft specific Linux distro The last one didn’t do so hot, they named it “Xenix”
- arexxbifs 1y ago
  It was a lousy distro, it didn't even include the Linux kernel! On the other hand, according to AT&T, Xenix accounted for about half of the worldwide Unix licenses in the late 1980s.
- bdcravens 1y ago
  That wasn't Linux. Unix != Linux.
subjectsigma 1y ago
I would venture a guess that the name recognition helps them. No developer wants to install a distro they’ve never heard of, but they do want to install Ubuntu. If WSL supports Ubuntu then they can cash in on that.
delfinom 1y ago
>Microsoft cannot dominate the Linux kernel but it can gain control in userland. Imagine if they gained traction with their applications being installed by default in popular distributions. Yes, but how do they make money by doing this. Unlike the socialist hiveminds that end up being behind the distros. Microsoft has salaries and bills to pay. As far as I've always seen, everyone loves to leech on Microsoft's free stuff but nobody wants to pay for a product.
- masfoobar 1y ago
  I do not claim to be a business expert but I dont think their success comes from just their Windows Operating System. Well, I would say the success for Windows is not about the profit but the control of users. If the majority are on Windows, they are unlikly to change habit to what they are familar with. Besdies, for new PC/Laptops come bundled with Windows, Microsoft has made an agreement made with various retailers to come with Windows (Home edition) preinstalled. So in some ways, Windows is free for the User unless they pay for Professional edition, or whatever is offered today. Of course, the average user will create a microsoft account to complete the install. :-) Besides the Windows OS -- it is really the Services they provide.. Azure, Office365, SQL Server, PowerBI, etc. I would say THIS is where a lot of the money comes from... business willing to pay for them! I work for Companies that are willing to PAY for these things - all for "Support" If something goes wrong.. raise it with Microsoft. Even if I know what the problem is, it is all about the ticketing system. Throw it to Microsoft and carry on. Despite the above, Microsoft also have "Free" software. They have started to Open Source many of their software.. allowing Linux support as well as Windows. Visual Studio Code, SQL Server, Powershell, etc. It comes back to my point. When they presented WSL - they could have provided a "MS Linux" Distro, all promoted as "ease for Windows users" and if it became a popular distro, would have pushed micrsoft to have more control in userland... which would have alienated most Windows users away from Ubuntu, etc. Like Windows, it is a method to keeping your userbase to rely on what they know overall.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
martinald 1y ago
I strongly suspect in time Microsoft will move to Linux, at least with things like Windows Server and embedded Windows. Then a gradual change for Windows desktop, or a sort of Windows Legacy vs Windows "Linux Workstation" desktop options. Linux kernel + some sort of 'super' WINE and a fallback tightly integrated Windows classic on a VM for certain programs. Only problem is that the NT kernel in many ways is much better than the Linux kernel design wise (for example, the NT kernel can handle a total GPU driver crash and restore itself, which I think Linux would really struggle with - same with a lot of other drivers). But Windows is increasingly a liability not an asset for Microsoft, especially in the server space. Their main revenue stream is Azure & Office 365 which is growing at double digits still, with Windows license growth flat. At a minimum I'd expect a Linux based version of Windows Server and some sort of Workstation version of Windows, based on Linux.
- naikrovek 1y ago
  > I strongly suspect in time Microsoft will move to Linux, at least with things like Windows Server and embedded Windows. You may not understand how important Microsoft considers backwards compatibility. Switching to a Linux kernel would eliminate all of that, and that is simply not an option for Microsoft. The Linux kernel is missing a lot of esoteric things that the NT kernel has and that people use a lot, as well. Windows as we use the word today (any variant) will not ever switch to a Linux kernel. I do hope one day that Microsoft put a proper GUI on Linux though, no X, no Wayland, but something smarter and better than those. Probably also not likely to happen but I’d love to see it if they could do it well.
  - trelane 1y ago
    > I do hope one day that Microsoft put a proper GUI on Linux though, no X, no Wayland, but something smarter and better than those. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ Now that I say that, though, that does sound like a Microsoft kind of move. They do love other platforms "to death."
    - naikrovek 1y ago
LionEgo 1y ago
The reason why WSL is a thing is because developers in corps needed a way to run Linux. IT support and techs doesn't know anything about Linux typically and don't want to deal with supporting it. WSL fixes this problem. Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. Many developers don't even really know how to user a terminal and rely on GUI tools.
- 8-prime 1y ago
  > Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. I don't know if this is necessarily true. Many of the develops I know prefer GUI applications to cli tooling, which I can get behind. That has nothing to do with Linux vs Windows though. But my struggles with Windows are plentiful and the same goes for all my colleagues. I have a hard time believing that we are the outliers and not the rule.
  - philistine 1y ago
    > Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. (looks at the install numbers for Linux vs Windows in the server space) I'm not so sure.
  - LionEgo 1y ago
    We are the outliers. My co-workers hasn't even removed the awful Windows weather app and search bar from the taskbar.
- lpcvoid 1y ago
  Sorry for the snarky comment, but then those devs are simply bad. Windows is legacy, the future is in open source.
  - LionEgo 1y ago
    > Sorry for the snarky comment, but then those devs are simply bad Yes. That is the majority of developers. I had to explain to a dev today (nice enough guy) that he has to actually run the tests. > Windows is legacy, the future is in open source. You can claim the future is opensource but the industry has moved towards SAAS, PAAS, IAAS which is even more lock in than using a proprietary OS such as Windows. So while you might have an opensource OS, many of the programs you use will be proprietary in the worst way possible.
dfedbeef 1y ago
You think Microsoft maintains an entire secret distro just for Windows people to feel 'at home'.
- masfoobar 1y ago
  > You think Microsoft maintains an entire secret distro just for Windows people to feel 'at home'. Sorry I dont understand the point you are making. I did not suggest they had a "secret distro" I am suggesting they could have claimed a share of dominance in the Linux Distro as the default WSL distro.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
Arnavion 1y ago
>About a month ago I heard Microsoft had their own Linux distribution to help Microsoft Windows users feel more at home. From memory, it was a rather simple GNOME setup. Nothing special. You're confusing Microsoft's first-party Linux distro Azure Linux (nee CBL-Mariner) that is intended as a regular MS-supported OS for containers, VMs, servers, etc, with various Windows-like skins for Linux DEs that people have made for years.

repler 1y ago

> I am surprised Micrsooft didnt use the opportunity to create a micrsoft specific Linux distro The last one didn’t do so hot, they named it “Xenix”

arexxbifs 1y ago
It was a lousy distro, it didn't even include the Linux kernel! On the other hand, according to AT&T, Xenix accounted for about half of the worldwide Unix licenses in the late 1980s.
bdcravens 1y ago
That wasn't Linux. Unix != Linux.

subjectsigma 1y ago

I would venture a guess that the name recognition helps them. No developer wants to install a distro they’ve never heard of, but they do want to install Ubuntu. If WSL supports Ubuntu then they can cash in on that.

delfinom 1y ago

>Microsoft cannot dominate the Linux kernel but it can gain control in userland. Imagine if they gained traction with their applications being installed by default in popular distributions. Yes, but how do they make money by doing this. Unlike the socialist hiveminds that end up being behind the distros. Microsoft has salaries and bills to pay. As far as I've always seen, everyone loves to leech on Microsoft's free stuff but nobody wants to pay for a product.

masfoobar 1y ago
I do not claim to be a business expert but I dont think their success comes from just their Windows Operating System. Well, I would say the success for Windows is not about the profit but the control of users. If the majority are on Windows, they are unlikly to change habit to what they are familar with. Besdies, for new PC/Laptops come bundled with Windows, Microsoft has made an agreement made with various retailers to come with Windows (Home edition) preinstalled. So in some ways, Windows is free for the User unless they pay for Professional edition, or whatever is offered today. Of course, the average user will create a microsoft account to complete the install. :-) Besides the Windows OS -- it is really the Services they provide.. Azure, Office365, SQL Server, PowerBI, etc. I would say THIS is where a lot of the money comes from... business willing to pay for them! I work for Companies that are willing to PAY for these things - all for "Support" If something goes wrong.. raise it with Microsoft. Even if I know what the problem is, it is all about the ticketing system. Throw it to Microsoft and carry on. Despite the above, Microsoft also have "Free" software. They have started to Open Source many of their software.. allowing Linux support as well as Windows. Visual Studio Code, SQL Server, Powershell, etc. It comes back to my point. When they presented WSL - they could have provided a "MS Linux" Distro, all promoted as "ease for Windows users" and if it became a popular distro, would have pushed micrsoft to have more control in userland... which would have alienated most Windows users away from Ubuntu, etc. Like Windows, it is a method to keeping your userbase to rely on what they know overall.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

martinald 1y ago

I strongly suspect in time Microsoft will move to Linux, at least with things like Windows Server and embedded Windows. Then a gradual change for Windows desktop, or a sort of Windows Legacy vs Windows "Linux Workstation" desktop options. Linux kernel + some sort of 'super' WINE and a fallback tightly integrated Windows classic on a VM for certain programs. Only problem is that the NT kernel in many ways is much better than the Linux kernel design wise (for example, the NT kernel can handle a total GPU driver crash and restore itself, which I think Linux would really struggle with - same with a lot of other drivers). But Windows is increasingly a liability not an asset for Microsoft, especially in the server space. Their main revenue stream is Azure & Office 365 which is growing at double digits still, with Windows license growth flat. At a minimum I'd expect a Linux based version of Windows Server and some sort of Workstation version of Windows, based on Linux.

naikrovek 1y ago
> I strongly suspect in time Microsoft will move to Linux, at least with things like Windows Server and embedded Windows. You may not understand how important Microsoft considers backwards compatibility. Switching to a Linux kernel would eliminate all of that, and that is simply not an option for Microsoft. The Linux kernel is missing a lot of esoteric things that the NT kernel has and that people use a lot, as well. Windows as we use the word today (any variant) will not ever switch to a Linux kernel. I do hope one day that Microsoft put a proper GUI on Linux though, no X, no Wayland, but something smarter and better than those. Probably also not likely to happen but I’d love to see it if they could do it well.
- trelane 1y ago
  > I do hope one day that Microsoft put a proper GUI on Linux though, no X, no Wayland, but something smarter and better than those. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ Now that I say that, though, that does sound like a Microsoft kind of move. They do love other platforms "to death."
  - naikrovek 1y ago

LionEgo 1y ago

The reason why WSL is a thing is because developers in corps needed a way to run Linux. IT support and techs doesn't know anything about Linux typically and don't want to deal with supporting it. WSL fixes this problem. Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. Many developers don't even really know how to user a terminal and rely on GUI tools.

8-prime 1y ago
> Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. I don't know if this is necessarily true. Many of the develops I know prefer GUI applications to cli tooling, which I can get behind. That has nothing to do with Linux vs Windows though. But my struggles with Windows are plentiful and the same goes for all my colleagues. I have a hard time believing that we are the outliers and not the rule.
- philistine 1y ago
  > Most developers don't want to use Linux at all. (looks at the install numbers for Linux vs Windows in the server space) I'm not so sure.
- LionEgo 1y ago
  We are the outliers. My co-workers hasn't even removed the awful Windows weather app and search bar from the taskbar.
lpcvoid 1y ago
Sorry for the snarky comment, but then those devs are simply bad. Windows is legacy, the future is in open source.
- LionEgo 1y ago
  > Sorry for the snarky comment, but then those devs are simply bad Yes. That is the majority of developers. I had to explain to a dev today (nice enough guy) that he has to actually run the tests. > Windows is legacy, the future is in open source. You can claim the future is opensource but the industry has moved towards SAAS, PAAS, IAAS which is even more lock in than using a proprietary OS such as Windows. So while you might have an opensource OS, many of the programs you use will be proprietary in the worst way possible.

dfedbeef 1y ago

You think Microsoft maintains an entire secret distro just for Windows people to feel 'at home'.

masfoobar 1y ago
> You think Microsoft maintains an entire secret distro just for Windows people to feel 'at home'. Sorry I dont understand the point you are making. I did not suggest they had a "secret distro" I am suggesting they could have claimed a share of dominance in the Linux Distro as the default WSL distro.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Arnavion 1y ago

>About a month ago I heard Microsoft had their own Linux distribution to help Microsoft Windows users feel more at home. From memory, it was a rather simple GNOME setup. Nothing special. You're confusing Microsoft's first-party Linux distro Azure Linux (nee CBL-Mariner) that is intended as a regular MS-supported OS for containers, VMs, servers, etc, with various Windows-like skins for Linux DEs that people have made for years.