News: 1601274605

I’m not a programmer, but didn’t porting edge to chromium then make it far easier to port to Linux, Mac etc.

I wouldn’t look at porting an open source implementation to linux the sand as porting the whole of the os.

Yes but that's just why it makes sense to choose it as a small trial project

for the Linux Kernel team should this happen.

MS will want more and more control of the underlying layers. I fully expect that the core of Kernel Devs will shrink and be replaced by MS people. Linus will be pushed out and the job will be done... well part of it.

I see their next task as taking key parts of the kernel out of GPL. Us refuseniks will still be able to build a working kernel but more and more key elements will be for MS licencees only. As they extend this, there will be parts of the open source kernel that is simply left behind to fester and die. A group will be formed to keep it alove but their job will become harder and harder and eventually they'll give up from lack of funding.

Then Redmond's job will be done and we'll all be beholden to Microsoft (as well as paying them money for patches). The only place left to go will be BSD.

Yes, this is a worst case scenario but...

It is up to everyone to stop them taking over and bleeding it try.

I would agree with you, but they cannot take components out from under the GPL, not legally at least unless the person who wrote the code and all the people who modified it agree. I don't see that happening any time soon.

>>> The only place left to go will be BSD.

Good.

Linux already emulates Windows very well - a collossal train wreck of ugly hacks, shonky patches and bloatware. Any OS responsible for horrors like systemd deserves to die.

The OS is responsible for the systemd-cancer? Interesting concept. Please elucidate.

It's getting hard to find a distro that doesn't use systemd. In consequence it will be increasingly common to find applications assuming that one of other of its tentacles is available for use.

"It's getting hard to find a distro that doesn't use systemd."

Slackware still works quite nicely. Perhaps your definition of "hard" doesn't match mine?

"In consequence it will be increasingly common to find applications assuming that one of other of its tentacles is available for use."

I have heard many people make this claim. However, io date I have not found that to be an issue even one time. As I said, Slackware still works quite nicely.

> ...to date I have not found that to be an issue even one time.

Correct me if I am wrong: Gnome desktop (IIRC under Debian).

Of course there is Devuan, not having systemd and this dependency.

The beauty of Linux (and open source in general) is that people can fork things if they do not like the direction of a project.

Its not like Windows or Mac where you could be actively prevented running/changing a component of the OS.

There are several systemd free distros..

- Devuan (debian based)

- Void

- Slackware

- Gentoo

- GUIX

- Artix Linux (arch based)

Probably many others.

Personally for all its faults I have got used to it now and can see advantages compared to past init systems (I quite liked upstart )

The times I've tried a BSD felt like death by 1000 paper cuts. Not because it was different to the GPL equivalents, of course I expected that. Lots of details didn't quite work as advertised.

Don't ask for details though, it's been a few years.

"Lots of details didn't quite work as advertised."

And yet, BSD was the base for SunOS, AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix, NeXTStep, Solaris, Tru64, OSX, MacOS ... need I go on?

SunOS4 not SunOS5. Not AIX. A lot of Unix variants acquired BSDisms (such as vi) but claiming they were all based on BSD is a stretch too far.

NeXTStep was based on the Mach micro-kernel as is macOS (or at least /a/ micro-kernel).

I think you'll find that there is a lot of 4.3BSD in SunOS5.0 (AKA Solaris), by way of SysVR4.

AIX had boatloads of 4.2BSD in it, with a hefty pinch of early SysV.

The Mach kernel itself started life as 4.2BSD, and userland in MacOS and NeXT is clearly BSD.

NeXT and OS X (same thing really) put a human-usable layer on top of all the nasty details I was trying to deal with.

"NeXTStep was based on the Mach micro-kernel as is macOS"

The Mach kernel was based on the BSD UNIX kernel. Most of the non-GUI parts of NeXTSTEP were also BSD UNIX, while the compiler was GNU's GCC with added Objective-C support.

Linus will be pushed out and the job will be done... well part of it.

If he is forced out it will be fascinating to see Linus forking the Linux kernel to keep a free version.

But I doubt that this "MS take over" will happen - there are too many others who depend on the Linux kernel.

Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish taken to extremes...against itself. IF this comes to pass, then Linux will win the desktop and Windows will be just another window manager.

Am I the only one watching all this Linux/Windows merging from Microsoft and thinking "Oh please no"?

I switched to GNU/Linux over 10 years ago (In three years... twenty years go :-O.. wow I'm getting old). Unfortunately this means my mind is still very much "I want GNU/Linux to just be GNU/Linux".

I really don't feel I want Microsoft code in my operating system (Even though, Microsoft have successfully shoved a ton of unchecked code into the kernel, .NET (mono) onto most GNU/Linux installations).

In my view, I don't see Microsoft essentially taking control of Linux as a "win" for GNU/Linux. If anything it's a loss. The thing we strived to be different from, we end up becoming them.

I'm sorry, but I don't want GNU/Linux to become Windows, or visa-versa. I want GNU/Linux to be GNU/Linux.

How long until something like HDCP is implemented in the kernel, and DRM becomes a standard, built-in part of GNU/Linux? I don't want the DRM and other licensing nightmares that will follow with the Windows merging.

At that point, GNU/Linux stops being a "Free as in Freedom" OS, and it is no longer truly "GNU/Linux".

Free as in Freedom please, not Free as in Windows.

/end rant

Why is "Microsoft code" any different to anyone else's? Also they're not putting "unchecked" code in - all kernel code will be looked at carefully by non-microsoft employees.

An old [1] example for you.

(BTW, this was easier to find with DDG than El Reg search, you might want to think about that guys.)

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/23/why_os2_failed_part_one/?page=2

There is a big difference between Microsoft and IBM dating (before Apple stole IBM away (remember Taligent & Pink?)), and Microsoft flirting with FOSS code.

Not so much, the leopard doesn't change his shorts.

Leopards also don't know the difference between commercial software licensing and the various FOSS models.

all kernel code will currently be looked at carefully by non-microsoft employees.

FTFY

Currently, schmerently. If it is going into the mainstream kernel, it will be given the fine-tooth by non-Microsoft employees until roughly the heat death of the Universe. There will always be a subset of the FOSS set who don't trust commercial code at all, and will make every effort to expose any transgressions (real or imagined) attempted by commercial outfits.

"Microsoft have successfully shoved a ton of unchecked code into the kernel"

No. If anything, the Redmond contributions to the kernel have been checked more thoroughly than contributions from any other commercial entity. Not only has it been vetted by Linus & the rest of the Kernel dev folks ... it is also very carefully eyeballed by a bunch of fanboi hangers-on, each eager to make a name for themselves finding bugs/holes/backdoors/other exploits in MS submitted code.

I didn't downvote you. But I disagree. The big gain here I think would be that printers, scanners, and a multitude of other useful peripherals might come with drivers that actually work in Unix. It's all very well to babble about SANE, WINE, native unix drivers. My experience has been that they rarely work very well (if at all) without many hours of effort on my part. And often not then. In my experience, the only things beyond mice, keyboards, and monitors that one can count on working out of the box with linux are storage devices or devices that emulate storage devices.

Also, if I understand ESR's argument -- which I may not -- Microsoft simply won't see much profit in screwing with the Linux kernel. Money in, no money back. Maybe they simply won't bother.

>The big gain here I think would be that printers, scanners, and a multitude of other useful peripherals might come with drivers that actually work in Unix.

Not explored CUPS 2 which contains support for Mopria?

Remarkable. Have multiple boxen here with very new peripherals connected to them... And it just all works. Could it be that the biggest issue in IT is located between keyboard and chair?

I see it differently.

Microsoft could be making more money from Office than from Windows. From their POV, it could be better not to have to worry about the underlying OS and concentrate on selling the more profitable Office and server apps.

From that perspective, having "Linux inside" makes a lot of sense. The other advantage is that Linux users become a market for Office apps, which nicely handles all those businesses (well, only a few, really) who have transitioned from Windows to Linux on the desktop.

For a long time the Windows O/S hasn't been a money spinnner per-say. It's always been things like Office & Exchange. (OEMs were never paying anywhere near full price for their bundled copies of Windows)

With Windows 10 now getting updates/upgrade for free, it does make you wonder what Microsoft's long term plans are for Windows. I feel the obvious answer is that they're interested in the subscription services (e.g. Office 365) over perpetual licenses. There were reports several years ago that MS was pushing its resellers to sell subscription Office 365 over perpetual licenses.

When Microsoft employees turn up at my office with Macbooks & iPhones (soemthing BIll & Steve would never have allowed) it only confirms my suspicions that MS see their future as on-line only. So the thought that Windows may fade into the distance isn't totally radical.

Interesting employees turn up with macbooks, I used to work at an agency who run MS's Australian social for xbox and dabble in other marketing areas and so they worked a day a week onsite to integrate with the client team more, our agency was macbooks (I being one of the few allowed to dualboot with a windows os) but as these guys worked a day a week out the MS office they all got MS gear (mostly surfacebooks) as they weren't allowed Macs, and, to re-iterate, we were a third party, not direct MS employees.

I remember back when I was involved in usergroups and went to lots of Microsoft events... The biggest event I remember was at the Heroes Happen now event that was either for Windows Server 2008 or 2008R2, and, most of the MS evangelists who were presenting had Macbooks.

nitpick: s/per-say/per se/

c.f wiktionary: Borrowed from Latin per sē (“by itself”), from per (“by, through”) and sē (“itself, himself, herself, themselves”).

Guilty as charged.

Running games is the simple part. They have a simple UI and usually don't use the OS widgets and their API anyway. Nor they care about many other aspects a business application need.

That's just show how small is the view of many open source developers - and why most open source software is pretty limited, ugly, and not user-friendly. If people had to pay for it, almost nobody would use it.

I like that you think "business applications" are the hard thing. Open Source devs have made the foundations of the hardest bits of computing, the giant iceberg of software that you see the tiniest tip of, and that your business application builds a minuscule house on.

"most open source software is pretty limited, ugly, and not user-friendly"

So you've still not tried it for yourself.

Yeah, right.

Games today and historically have always been the activity that taxes the hardware to the max. CPU, GPU and RAM are left choking and sometimes even the disk gets its share (e.g. badly programmed loading screens).

I cannot count the times I have upgraded my PC to the latest and greatest in CPU and video, only to buy a new game and find myself playing at a measly 45fps.

I think that the only other widespread personal activity that can bring a PC to its knees is video editing. I hardly do any of that, but when I do indulge, well, let me just say that I put my gaming on hold until it's done.

Excel doesn't hold a candle to that kind of activity.

"Running games is the simple part."

Bollocks. I decided to install Windows on the unused second drive of my laptop so I could play some games during the lock-down. I've previously been a console gamer, and I was shocked at how much fiddling around with old versions of drivers and third party hacks it takes to get a lot of PC games running in a usable state under Windows. Even on this high spec laptop with Nvidia graphics, I often have to drop the graphics options to very low settings to get non-stuttering gameplay, negating the main alleged benefit of running on a PC rather than a console.

So in summary, running games is hard. Very hard judging by how badly they run on Windows.

"...and why most open source software is pretty limited, ugly, and not user-friendly."

Gnuplot, image magick, python, r, etc, etc, etc are limited? I think not

I will give you that Windows graphics are stunning and that Windows can be quite easy to use -- when everything goes just exactly right. Sadly, in my experience, that isn't all that often the case.

User friendly? I'll give you that writing bash scripts can be like dealing with a hungry crocodile with a toothache. On the other hand, I don't recall that writing command line scripts for MSDOS/Windows was exactly a transcendent experience. And in my experience Unix tools tend to be far more capable and flexible than their Microsoft equivalents. GUIs? Windows gives you one choice which has devolved from a usable, if mundane, interface in Windows 95 to an incomprehensible jumble in Windows 10. The unix world lets you choose from dozens.

BTW, I'm told that Microsoft has finally gotten around to inventing workspaces -- decades after they have been available in Unix UIs. Really, how have you lived without them?

Reminds me of when windows and OS/2 were just emerging.,

Windows was originally to be a different front end to OS/2, one more familiar to people who had experience of Windows 3 on DOS.

But, the story goes that Bill Gates saw the success of Windows and didn't want to share with IBM. So we got the mess that is Windows or was Windows in the past.

As an end user I just want to be able to run the 'Program' I want on my computer whether that is Gimp, MS Flight Sim, iMovie, Office, RaceRender, Forza, Gran Turismo....... etc.

As a Programmer (yes I do write stuff) I want to be able to write in my chosen language (C and its successors) and with just a compiler switch and a few different libraries produce code which runs anywhere.

MacOS runs Linux code with just a few tweaks to makefiles, why shouldn't windows?

"MacOS runs Linux code with just a few tweaks to makefiles, why shouldn't windows?"

Because Mac OS is essentially a flavo(u)r of BSD. Windows is not.

Eric is such a dreamer. The reality is going to be exactly opposite of what he wrote, for better or worse.

I was going to say much the same thing.

Does anybody give a fuck about what ESR has to say any more?

Yep, he's all arse-about-face. Two Es down, one to go.

On both sides. If it took Microsoft adopting Linux to finally usher in the year of the Linux desktop....

... Linux already has more than enough GUI+APIs. Nobody really needs another one.

So - porting Edge to Linux obviously means that Microsoft is going to move everything to Linux and stop developing Windows.... But they ported it to Mac first. Does that mean they are going to stop developing Windows and move to Mac?

I wonder if the person that came up with this idea stopped and had a bit of a think before he started....

It's the opposite that MS are thinking. After all most of what people do now is in the browser and if the same browser is available on all platforms and it is what people want to use and it is Edge (a bit what if) then why would people not buy cheap Windows PCs?