Microsoft-Linux!(MS-Linux)

[bongski55]

Came across this article:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1400161,00.asp

What do you think?

[drdream]

microsoft isn't interested to put up a ms-linux distro for servers, becouse a ms-linux for servers means killing the .net projects, like windows .net, windows2003, etc..., in wich ms put up a lot of money. that's why we will never see a linux distro from microsoft

[Superstoned]

well, we might ever see a linux from m$, but only if their market share has dropped below 5%... which unfortunately wont be anytime soon.

[garyng]

I would say the writer doesn't know what is linux. A unix like environment is more like the GNU part of GNU/Linux where linux is the kernel, GNU stuffs can be collectively called the UNIX shell environment. Cygnus already has it on Windows.

To host linux under Window is possible, that is what VMWare is doing. So it would be more likely that MS use its fat pocket to buy up VMWare, like it wanted to do with google. The typical "if we can't beat it, buy it". I would say the US government should ban them from buying any more company to acquire(or kill) the technology they can't compete with.

[Cuddles]

Here Here GaryNg,

MS has always either swallowed a, viable, technology or somehow gotten the technology locked up in legal court cases, till the company could no longer survive.

Case in point: Stacker had a great memory management/compression technology - when it got stronger than what came with Windows, they attacked Stacker with court costs - stating that "Stacker" stole the code from MS. Now, I think deep inside MS' compression and memory management routines is actually code from Stacker. From what I knew, MS Windows even went so far as to not boot, install, or otherwise freeze, if it found that Stacker was being used in conjunction with MS products.

That, and many other reasons, is why I see the "openness" of Knoppix, and being able to walk away from all the MS crude that is going on. I have many products that come from MS, from the OS, to Keyboards, to Mice, development software, even down to the Internet and E-Mail I use. I am more than happy to simply walk away from all this "monopoly", as long as 1) Knoppix can support all the hardware/software I use, and 2) Knoppix can prove it is more stable and have less "leaks" than MS has.

I am still looking into the (1) part above, but I am possitive that Knoppix has number (2) down pat. From just using the Live CD of Knoppix, I am sure as Bill Gates has more money than anyone could ever spend, that Knoppix is far more stable and has less of the "security leaks" than Windows has ever wished it had.

As far as the "security" issues of MS, they have fixed most of the problems in Windows95 and Windows98, but have restarted with all the problems in Win2k, WinXP, WinME, etc... So, it appears that every time MS decides to release a new OS, they forget all the things they learned in the "security" realm from all the previous OS' they have released.

From what I see, MS seems to think, "hey, what the heck, we got'em, and we can't loose them" - I think not - I running to Knoppix !

Cuddles

[j.drake]

I have a question about GPL with regard to the above, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

I see it as extremetly unlikely that MS would adopt anything that would make any portion of their software open source. If they were to go this direction, I see it more like what Apple did with OS X - finding a way to incorporate BSD Unix into the OS without compromising their proprietary rights. I also think it's unlikely that MS would go with anything that could be made compatible with OS X. So, assuming that it did move in the direction of Linux, I suspect that they would more likely develop their own Linux-style OS, rather than using the actual Linux kernel. They might even make it compatible with Linux. The nature of open-source being what it is, developers will be motivated to ensure that subsequent developments of open source Linux would be compatible with the Microsoft beast, and MS's version would evolve into the de facto standard, thereby rendering Linux irrelevant to anyone other than the hard-core masochists and rebels who enjoy dealing with BASH. Sooner or later, MS could then pull a SCO, and allege that some subsequent development of Linux incorporated their proprietary code. Of course the opposite could not happen, because of GPL.

So, I know that if you use GPL code in a product, your product becomes subject to GPL. But what if you simply use GPL code to get ideas for writing your own proprietary code,, without actually copying it? I know that with copyrighted code, even the mere exposure to it during the development process of your own software will be the kiss of death. Is that true for exposure to GPL code? If not, I bet that's what they would do.

MS bought Q-DOS after claiming it as their own. Later they wrote the Windows shell. Win 95 was a real development, as was NT. Now that NT variants and their predecessors are recognized to be so flawed, and Linux is recognized, even by people who hate it, as rock solid, I can't imagine that MS would start from scratch with developing a new and original kernel/OS. OTOH, they've got to be really tired of polishing their existing turd.