4 ms·

Genuinely interested: is there any kind of interest in using Edge? I would have guess that either people don't care and they use Google Chrome, or they do and u

by palata 1mo ago

Genuinely interested: is there any kind of interest in using Edge? I would have guess that either people don't care and they use Google Chrome, or they do and use... well I guess not Edge? I am still on Firefox, so I'm genuinely confused on the Chromium side... On GrapheneOS there is Vanadium, I trust it because of GrapheneOS. But on Linux... Brave is often described as "shady", I don't know if there is a good Chromium-based solution?

masfoobar 1mo ago
I honestly believe Microsoft missed on an opportunity to claim a percentage of the Linux market by not creating from their own Linux Distro. This distro would have been the default under WSL. Not Ubuntu. Not Debian. Etc. Most people would not have cared which distro. They would simply used what was provided. However, this distro would come preinstalled with Powershell, Edge, to name a few. To further that it would make it easy to install additional Microsoft software like SQL Server, Management Studio, dotnet, etc. Simply imagine the vast majority of Windows users who have never touched Linux trying WSL for the first time and getting accustomed using tools they already know on Windows. It's likely Microsoft or their distro would gain some popularity. While this would be common with WSL - users could also download the distro for a full install. Use what they are already comfortable with. However, if they do decide to use a different distro, they would likely have enough confidence to know how install Microsoft software on it. Again (and thankfully) a missed opportunity. In all, why do I care about Edge or Powershell or other Windows-based software or tools on GNU/Linux? If there is general interest in using Edge - I, too, would like to hear it.
- RattlesnakeJake 1mo ago
  If Microsoft stepped any further into the Linux world, the OSS community would run far away. There's already a precedent for massive backlash whenever Canonical or Red Hat build something proprietary or upstream a change that favors their business goals instead of the larger community. Given Microsoft's well-documented "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" approach to open competition, no one would trust them.
  - masfoobar 1mo ago
    You might be right. However, you are referring to the OSS community that are aware of user freedoms, software licenses... putting the end user first! I am talking about the majority of Windows users (even tech users) who have not touched Linux. This is still a large user base. Imagine them getting their hands wet trying out Linux for the first time via WSL. Imagine them using a default distro that holds their hand with what they are familiar with. Regardless what the OSS community thinks, if Microsoft played their cards right, they might have gained something not just in WSL space, but also Azure. Loads of people, even today, purposely go with Microsoft products because the business they work for supports it. Its those places that may have given a Microsoft Linux OS the chance for some percentage share. There are people out there that are all in on Microsoft and do not care about licensing or Free/Open vs Proprietary. Some people just want to use what they are comfortable with and continue to push whatever their job covers. If there is a reason to use Linux, they likely would be happy to use a "Microsoft Distro" to keep things connected.
    - RattlesnakeJake 1mo ago
      That's a fair distinction. I suspect it would mostly mimic the way things played out with Android & ChromeOS. A corporation made the most polished and usable Linux distros ever, and it split down the exact lines you mentioned: - The OSS Faithful, who mostly ignored it and didn't count it toward "The Year of the Linux Desktop" - The normal folks, who use it without knowing anything about the underlying Linux baseline This distinction is baked into the design of the OSS movement. The goal is to build usable computing that doesn't depend on a corporation (though alliances may be made at times when incentives align), and any corporate encroachment is fairly seen as antagonistic to those goals. All that being said, none of this really serves Microsoft. They have a fantastic OS kernel and hardware support already (even if they throw crappy UX on top of it), and their chief differentiator is their long tradition of backwards compatibility. This locks enterprises and users into their ecosystem, and pushing a Linux distro would only give customers an opening to look elsewhere.
      - masfoobar 1mo ago
roryirvine 1mo ago
I imagine the biggest audience is corporate IT, especially in situations where Windows users vastly outnumber Linux and they don't really want to expend too much effort on it. Set the dev team up with Ubuntu, integrate them into whatever enterprise MDM solution they use (most support Ubuntu these days), tell them to use Edge to access the Intranet & other corporate websites, job done. But if you just want a Chrome-y browser, you might as well just use Chromium itself. It's a bit more pernickety than Firefox (particularly if you want to have accelerated video) but it's not dreadful, and likely has first-class support from your preferred distro.
hyperman1 1mo ago
I got an IT consultant looking at our Linux laptops, and his opinion was that the Belgian implementation of the CRA basically made Microsoft security tools obligatory: No other product survives auditors and your company will have to carry the burden of compliance itself. So if we roll that out, and MS now makes Edge the only browser supported, it also becomes obligatory, end users be damned. MS knows how to play legislators very well.

by palata 1mo ago

masfoobar 1mo ago

I honestly believe Microsoft missed on an opportunity to claim a percentage of the Linux market by not creating from their own Linux Distro. This distro would have been the default under WSL. Not Ubuntu. Not Debian. Etc. Most people would not have cared which distro. They would simply used what was provided. However, this distro would come preinstalled with Powershell, Edge, to name a few. To further that it would make it easy to install additional Microsoft software like SQL Server, Management Studio, dotnet, etc. Simply imagine the vast majority of Windows users who have never touched Linux trying WSL for the first time and getting accustomed using tools they already know on Windows. It's likely Microsoft or their distro would gain some popularity. While this would be common with WSL - users could also download the distro for a full install. Use what they are already comfortable with. However, if they do decide to use a different distro, they would likely have enough confidence to know how install Microsoft software on it. Again (and thankfully) a missed opportunity. In all, why do I care about Edge or Powershell or other Windows-based software or tools on GNU/Linux? If there is general interest in using Edge - I, too, would like to hear it.

RattlesnakeJake 1mo ago
If Microsoft stepped any further into the Linux world, the OSS community would run far away. There's already a precedent for massive backlash whenever Canonical or Red Hat build something proprietary or upstream a change that favors their business goals instead of the larger community. Given Microsoft's well-documented "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" approach to open competition, no one would trust them.
- masfoobar 1mo ago
  You might be right. However, you are referring to the OSS community that are aware of user freedoms, software licenses... putting the end user first! I am talking about the majority of Windows users (even tech users) who have not touched Linux. This is still a large user base. Imagine them getting their hands wet trying out Linux for the first time via WSL. Imagine them using a default distro that holds their hand with what they are familiar with. Regardless what the OSS community thinks, if Microsoft played their cards right, they might have gained something not just in WSL space, but also Azure. Loads of people, even today, purposely go with Microsoft products because the business they work for supports it. Its those places that may have given a Microsoft Linux OS the chance for some percentage share. There are people out there that are all in on Microsoft and do not care about licensing or Free/Open vs Proprietary. Some people just want to use what they are comfortable with and continue to push whatever their job covers. If there is a reason to use Linux, they likely would be happy to use a "Microsoft Distro" to keep things connected.
  - RattlesnakeJake 1mo ago
    That's a fair distinction. I suspect it would mostly mimic the way things played out with Android & ChromeOS. A corporation made the most polished and usable Linux distros ever, and it split down the exact lines you mentioned: - The OSS Faithful, who mostly ignored it and didn't count it toward "The Year of the Linux Desktop" - The normal folks, who use it without knowing anything about the underlying Linux baseline This distinction is baked into the design of the OSS movement. The goal is to build usable computing that doesn't depend on a corporation (though alliances may be made at times when incentives align), and any corporate encroachment is fairly seen as antagonistic to those goals. All that being said, none of this really serves Microsoft. They have a fantastic OS kernel and hardware support already (even if they throw crappy UX on top of it), and their chief differentiator is their long tradition of backwards compatibility. This locks enterprises and users into their ecosystem, and pushing a Linux distro would only give customers an opening to look elsewhere.
    - masfoobar 1mo ago

roryirvine 1mo ago

I imagine the biggest audience is corporate IT, especially in situations where Windows users vastly outnumber Linux and they don't really want to expend too much effort on it. Set the dev team up with Ubuntu, integrate them into whatever enterprise MDM solution they use (most support Ubuntu these days), tell them to use Edge to access the Intranet & other corporate websites, job done. But if you just want a Chrome-y browser, you might as well just use Chromium itself. It's a bit more pernickety than Firefox (particularly if you want to have accelerated video) but it's not dreadful, and likely has first-class support from your preferred distro.

hyperman1 1mo ago

I got an IT consultant looking at our Linux laptops, and his opinion was that the Belgian implementation of the CRA basically made Microsoft security tools obligatory: No other product survives auditors and your company will have to carry the burden of compliance itself. So if we roll that out, and MS now makes Edge the only browser supported, it also becomes obligatory, end users be damned. MS knows how to play legislators very well.