GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
REUTERS, Seattle - In an unprecedented and totally unexpected move, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) today announced a full blown acceptance of the open source movement and has decided that it will not only embrace Linux as the definitive operating system of choice, but will base its next Windows OS release (codenamed Longhorn) on the low-cost operating system. No information has been given yet as to the technical details of this move, but the software giant has made it clear that moving to Linux would, in the long run, prove to a viable and highly profitable business venture.
"After careful analysis in our labs and on our calculators, we've come to the conclusion that embracing the Linux platform would be far more cost effective than trying to compete with it. We've already started porting our primary code base to the operating system structure, and expect to have Longhorn ready for release by the end of 2005," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
"We felt that if Apple could do it, we could do it, too, and do it better," Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates said.
No word yet on which version of the Linux kernel will be used, or if the resulting OS will be distributed on the much heralded GNU General Public License. It's pretty well agreed, though, that releasing the source code for the OS and subsequent applications would be a major course change for the Redmond-based company.
Such major about-faces in business strategy are not unheard of for Microsoft, however. Such a change of strategy took place when the Internet boom took place in the early 90's, and their much publicized security plans in the early part of this decade. Whether or not it succeeds in this new venture remains to be seen, as there are large numbers of "Microsoft-haters" in the world - especially in the Linux community.
------------------------------------------
OK, I admit, the above story is completely fiction - and science fiction at that (I'm good at that sort of thing, though). Microsoft has never made such an announcement, and to my knowledge, is not even anywhere near considering such a change in business strategy or focus.
I should point out that in case anyone has an itchy legal trigger finger, I am not affiliated in any way with Microsoft, Reuters, Bill Gates, or Steve Ballmer. The above story is strictly fictional, and in no way is it based on any facts either public or private. It was written solely to help illustrate a point and the subsequent question posed below. It is not intended to be slanderous or cause any hostility in any way.
However, I'm curious how the LInux community would take it if Microsoft did, in fact, make such an announcement?
I don't know what I would do...to be honest. I am not sure if that would be the best thing that could happen to Mircrosoft, or the worst thing for us.
On that tangent let me say something. My beef with Microsoft is probably not the same as everyone else's. Lemme explain.
Microsoft is the number 1 OS in the world on desktop platforms. There is no doubting that. And yet look at where it has gotten us...look at where we are now compared to Windows 95.
Sure there have been cosmetic changes, a few features added to make life easier, but nothing has been done that is revolutionary. Microsoft is in the position that it has the ability to change the world of computing overnight. They own 95% of the desktop and home user market share, they could unroll a change that could take us humans to the next computing level to something we have never dreamed of before.
And yet where are we? Windows 95(ish). They have instead choosen a different route. They have chosen to produce poorer quality OS, they have chosen to dominate the market than control it (I know money talks, but you can still make money and be revolutionary), they have chosen to come in and wipe out anyone with different thoughts rather than embracing them.
That is my MAIN problem with Microsoft. I have other small issues, such as the fact that using Windows retards your computer knowledge, the monopoly issue, etc. but that is the one that really strikes a nerve with me.
Microsoft has the support, the technology, and the knowledge to wipe out those hackers (I mean hell, most of the hackers seem to be exploited security holes in Windows anyways) and utterly destroy virus's, but they are not and that saddens me.
I see nothing but good things for both sides (MS and Linux Community) if MS really took such a move. MS security holes would be easily fixed by the community, while the community would get a much better hardware and software support from a hell lot of companies (add games here too).
It's nothing dangerous to the extreme for the community as MS killing Linux. That's the beauty of Linux: If no distribution makes you happy enough, download a kernel and do it all yourself. Same would apply if MS makes an stinky OS.
It should not kill any distribution around either: MS owns over 95% of the desktop markets as said above. That public would continue to be 95%, but running, theoretically, a superior MS OS.
Pretty much what happened to apple: Now they have a good OS. It still sucks because it's Mac, but the OS is good and the public who used Mac before, is using Mac now, so it did not (and will not) change the market share for Apple significantly, or would Linux or MS anytime soon...
I don't really mind seeing MS taking the Linux kernel and doing what Apple did with BSD to Windows. ie. a proprietary UI over an opensource kernel. I agree that a lot of Windows users would benefit from such a merger.
I agree with Megaman X. I think it would be beneficial for everyone involved, even MS. They don't have to give their stuff away, either. They could do an Apple move and suck up all the good stuff about Linux and distribute Longhorn as a Linux dirivitive and still make money off of it. They wouldn't even have to kick NTFS or ditch their interface. It'd all work out.
SchadeBoy: there is a difference between "general" and "Linux - general"
Quote:
Microsoft has the support, the technology, and the knowledge to wipe out those hackers (I mean hell, most of the hackers seem to be exploited security holes in Windows anyways) and utterly destroy virus's, but they are not and that saddens me.
Brother Michael: you mean crackers, ....... hackers are the ones that made UNIX and Linux and BSD*(and even computers) what they are today, crackers are the people that used window to revolutionize how spam is distributed (along with viruses), and personal DoS attacks.... *sigh*
now as for the post:
yep, had me going for a sec, until this line
Quote:
"We felt that if Apple could do it, we could do it, too, and do it better," Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates said.
iv never known M$ or anyone that works there to say that (even tho most people think they do, but if they do its "unofficial") .....
but i think it would be rather good (until they sue the Linux hackers for stealing M$ code back when M$ was barley known) ... at least there will be less viruses.. a lot less as an intelligence would be required to make them
SchadeBoy: if windows was based on Linux technology would that mean that i wont have to reboot after a install a game?
Originally posted by SciYro SchadeBoy: there is a difference between "general" and "Linux - general"
I wasn't aware. Guess I need to learn to read. I'll pay more attention to that in the future. Thanks for pointing it out.
Quote:
Originally posted by SciYro SchadeBoy: if windows was based on Linux technology would that mean that i wont have to reboot after [I] install a game?
Only in theory. I suspect that there might still be problems - at least initially - with a Windows based on Linux or even UNIX. As is apparent with the many different distributions of Linux, I suspect that a Windows distro would have its share of problems off the bat. However, I think over time (and rather quickly at that) such a Windows would become quite stable. As was mentioned before, more software vendors would suddenly be forced to provide highly stable, working drivers for Linux-based machines. And probably, more likely than not, having to reboot after every install of anything - even software updates - would greatly diminish.
Somewhere deep inside of me, there's a little voice that says this whole idea might not be quite so outlandish as initially appears. Microsoft may be greedy and selfish in a lot of ways, but they're not stupid. We've seen them suck up other products because they knew they couldn't develop a better version in a quick enough time to get something to market. Happened with Internet Explorer (remember Mosaic?), and Visio, and a lot of their other products. In fact, I think Windows and Word are probably the only truly Microsoft developed applications. I think most of their other stuff was acquired either by buyouts of companies, or buying the product outright. Even MS-DOS wasn't completely developed by MS.
So it's possible that if Linux keeps growing in popularity, and especially as a viable desktop option (which I feel is inevitable), Microsoft might see the writing on the wall. It could very well get to a point where it's less expensive to openly embrace it, than fight it. And that could only be good for all involved (IMHO).
Thanks for agreeing with me SchadeBoy. Gotta tell ya, this is a very interesting thread. I wish more threads like this appeared on the general boards
Well, I do, prefer to see MS joining Linux then killing or be killed by it in the future. Or even worse, somebody who is not sure if loves or hates (they joined MS and bought a SCO license, then released a modified version of SuSE as desktop OS... three words in one: "wtf")Linux would take the market over with a cheaper and buggy OS.
Originally posted by SciYro
Brother Michael: you mean crackers, ....... hackers are the ones that made UNIX and Linux and BSD*(and even computers) what they are today, crackers are the people that used window to revolutionize how spam is distributed (along with viruses), and personal DoS attacks.... *sigh*
I thought that was wrong when I typed it, but I couldn't be sure. Sorry about that.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.