Microsoft Will NEVER Switch to the Linux Kernel! - Chris Titus Tech
video description
I agree to the vendor lock-ins, and why it would be unwise for a monster of a company to just, switch like this... but you're not necessarily looking at the bigger picture here... future computing needs & cloud computing. What if Windows switched to a Linux Kernel / Base, solely to offer a tiny and secure footprint ... that would put users onto a cloud instance of Windows. Or the like. The future is cloud services, subscriptions... saas.
I get we're not there, yet... but to be so passionate about it, and to say never. Look at history man; look at Apple's software path. Look at Windows Mobile software path.
I mean... you literally say it right at the end of your clip, -...big companies, don't really innovate...-
The validity of M$ right now is it's eco system; but that eco system needs to compete with the likes of Google, Zoho, and Apple. It's easy to envision a future where the focus is services and apps, that run on all platforms.
Microsoft kills businesses all the time when they switch versions, and developers are not prepared for the change.
Also, let's not pretend that M$ always makes sound, logical, decisions here.
Love the shirt by the way...
Date: 2022-03-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 8
Peter
You don't understand the concept. By switching to a Linux kernel, Microsoft saves a ton of money on drivers and other hardware dependent code. It also opens up basically all other commercially available platforms.
What you don't seem to get is that MS Windows becomes a proprietary desktop manager with a proprietary group of libraries, both system and application, to provide the MS Windows interfaces to the Linux kernel, which by the way will be a cryptographically signed binary(s) for Microsoft support. Microsoft maintains the Windows environment for users and developers as always. Their business model doesn't change. The Linux kernel remains hidden behind their system libraries. They only write one version of Windows for all architectures, though Windows will come in different sizes to fit different hardware platform sizes. Microsoft does what Microsoft does best, provide a Windows desktop to users and a generic interface to developers. Like back in the Windows 3.x days, but Linux instead of DOS.
It saves Microsoft low level software money, and increases their potential market size. Microsoft will do it because it increases profits, and is a win-win businesswise.
reply
You don't understand the concept. By switching to a Linux kernel, Microsoft saves a ton of money on drivers and other hardware dependent code. It also opens up basically all other commercially available platforms.
What you don't seem to get is that MS Windows becomes a proprietary desktop manager with a proprietary group of libraries, both system and application, to provide the MS Windows interfaces to the Linux kernel, which by the way will be a cryptographically signed binary(s) for Microsoft support. Microsoft maintains the Windows environment for users and developers as always. Their business model doesn't change. The Linux kernel remains hidden behind their system libraries. They only write one version of Windows for all architectures, though Windows will come in different sizes to fit different hardware platform sizes. Microsoft does what Microsoft does best, provide a Windows desktop to users and a generic interface to developers. Like back in the Windows 3.x days, but Linux instead of DOS.
It saves Microsoft low level software money, and increases their potential market size. Microsoft will do it because it increases profits, and is a win-win businesswise.
reply
Spencer
I tend to agree with your arguments. My question is this: When the majority of people start noticing problems in their OS, learn about the continual security issues, make the switch to a random distro, and those numbers keep climbing, and those people are the tech people who enjoy the games, and the game developers know this as well, when does it become too much of a moral burden to not actively make the development switch themselves? Better technology always wins in these races, we see it in the hardware space all the time, it stands to reason that this will effect the operating system and software spaces also. I am seriously considering a Linux distro as a daily driver with a dual boot for special programs when needed. I realize your audience when you made this is likely all Linux people, but I am a Windows person who is looking for new skills and better security. So hopefully this perspective helps
reply
I tend to agree with your arguments. My question is this: When the majority of people start noticing problems in their OS, learn about the continual security issues, make the switch to a random distro, and those numbers keep climbing, and those people are the tech people who enjoy the games, and the game developers know this as well, when does it become too much of a moral burden to not actively make the development switch themselves? Better technology always wins in these races, we see it in the hardware space all the time, it stands to reason that this will effect the operating system and software spaces also. I am seriously considering a Linux distro as a daily driver with a dual boot for special programs when needed. I realize your audience when you made this is likely all Linux people, but I am a Windows person who is looking for new skills and better security. So hopefully this perspective helps
reply
Keksgesicht
I run Windows as a VM inside a Linux Server (do I call it Linux Subsystem for Windows?) and using Docker and SSH to compile something on my network drives because gcc inside WSL keeps telling me every 10th compile run that the output file does not exist.
Also with btrfs I can easily backup my VMs to prevent failures. WSL 2 isn't posible becuase it needs virtualisation features and you guessed it Windows does not support nesting on AMD. GG Microsoft.
Currently I use more and more native Linux Desktop. Still as a VM on my Workstation/Server. On my laptop I only use Linux because univerity requires it for some Application and my battery holds longer and is easier to calibrate.
reply
I run Windows as a VM inside a Linux Server (do I call it Linux Subsystem for Windows?) and using Docker and SSH to compile something on my network drives because gcc inside WSL keeps telling me every 10th compile run that the output file does not exist.
Also with btrfs I can easily backup my VMs to prevent failures. WSL 2 isn't posible becuase it needs virtualisation features and you guessed it Windows does not support nesting on AMD. GG Microsoft.
Currently I use more and more native Linux Desktop. Still as a VM on my Workstation/Server. On my laptop I only use Linux because univerity requires it for some Application and my battery holds longer and is easier to calibrate.
reply
Frayed
Thing is I love using Linux because it is so smooth, so quick and so reliable. Even now using Ubuntu you can just feel how solid it is. Windows to me now feels like a slow car stuck in the mud, whereas linux is so streamlined.
I want to game on Linux and I have tried a few times to mount my windows steam drive in linux and play my games that way using proton, but the games never start. I feel like in the end I am going to have to natively install my steam games in linux in order to play them properly.
So for now, things like adobe and gaming have me using windows 10 still...except minecraft. Minecraft rocks on Linux!
reply
Thing is I love using Linux because it is so smooth, so quick and so reliable. Even now using Ubuntu you can just feel how solid it is. Windows to me now feels like a slow car stuck in the mud, whereas linux is so streamlined.
I want to game on Linux and I have tried a few times to mount my windows steam drive in linux and play my games that way using proton, but the games never start. I feel like in the end I am going to have to natively install my steam games in linux in order to play them properly.
So for now, things like adobe and gaming have me using windows 10 still...except minecraft. Minecraft rocks on Linux!
reply
Dax
Hey - it-s a year later or so. I totally get your point but I think from a business perspective the overhead vs the payoff of maintaining the windows kernel and other associated systems will just stop making sense for Microsoft.
So my question is has your position changed, grown or gained any new perspective over the year? Or has it largely remained the same? Do you have any additional arguments that you would like to throw my way? Maybe the windows kernel will become more Linux like? I would love to hear more.
reply
Hey - it-s a year later or so. I totally get your point but I think from a business perspective the overhead vs the payoff of maintaining the windows kernel and other associated systems will just stop making sense for Microsoft.
So my question is has your position changed, grown or gained any new perspective over the year? Or has it largely remained the same? Do you have any additional arguments that you would like to throw my way? Maybe the windows kernel will become more Linux like? I would love to hear more.
reply
Calamiro
They don't have to switch in one go, they can however transition and adopt a linux based kernel.
Just because they use the kernel, doesn't mean their applications are somehow not going to work anymore. They are working on making the NT-side emulated.
They are thinking of moving to UWP and away from NT, UWP could be made to run on Linux.
Not that they will, but it is possible, given their recent moves. (win10X)
They're already losing money on the desktop side.
reply
They don't have to switch in one go, they can however transition and adopt a linux based kernel.
Just because they use the kernel, doesn't mean their applications are somehow not going to work anymore. They are working on making the NT-side emulated.
They are thinking of moving to UWP and away from NT, UWP could be made to run on Linux.
Not that they will, but it is possible, given their recent moves. (win10X)
They're already losing money on the desktop side.
reply
it_industry
As a person who knows the windows kernel in depth, it's impossible to switch to the linux kernel. That would require you to make a brand new system based off linux. There's hundreds of millions of dollars invested in it, thousands of hours of phd research, support for hardware and systems of all sizes, you can't just throw that away for an architecturally broken linux kernel made by amateurs.
reply
As a person who knows the windows kernel in depth, it's impossible to switch to the linux kernel. That would require you to make a brand new system based off linux. There's hundreds of millions of dollars invested in it, thousands of hours of phd research, support for hardware and systems of all sizes, you can't just throw that away for an architecturally broken linux kernel made by amateurs.
reply
Seth
The Windows Kernel has changed a lot over the past 20 years, it's just Microsoft has not really improved the design very much they just have added more features to it. Where Linux has been improving the kernel design since the beginning. Linux for servers was not always mainstream, it wasn't until about 12 years ago when everyone started to switch to Linux from BSD/UNIX/Windows Server.
reply
The Windows Kernel has changed a lot over the past 20 years, it's just Microsoft has not really improved the design very much they just have added more features to it. Where Linux has been improving the kernel design since the beginning. Linux for servers was not always mainstream, it wasn't until about 12 years ago when everyone started to switch to Linux from BSD/UNIX/Windows Server.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
