Then you get Edge switching to a Chrome backend in preparation for Microsoft's new Linux based distro!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Could Microsoft Release a Desktop Linux?
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
Then you get Edge switching to a Chrome backend in preparation for Microsoft's new Linux based distro!
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,871
Hmmm never thought of it that way, It probably worked well with WP as well (loved WP it was the best)
A hacked (modded) Win8 the pinnacal?
Ya got me thinking chris7191.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Well, there were certain parts of Windows 8.1 that I did prefer. Things mostly felt faster, although that was subjective. Also, I did like the full screen start menu and the Windows 10 version is just not the same.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,939
What does that have to do with anything? Apple wants you to move away from MacOS to iOS because they'll make more money as ARM is cheaper than Intel's CPU's. And yes I own but not regularly use MacOSX. Hell my Macbook has Linux on it cause MacOSX sucks. I hear recently that Apple really fucked over OpenGL in favor of Metal. There's no OpenGL 4.3 let alone 4.5, and you can forget about Vulkan.
I would rethink buying a Samsung as their screens are super expensive to replace.
Well if you're careful with your smartphone device and treat it with care then nothing will break on it. I swear to God, I see a lot of people with broken screens and yet I've had my iPhone 7 Plus for a little over two years and it's never had anything happen to it; no broken screen, no nothing. I've had to clean some crud out of the speakers and ports but that's it, nothing more than that has had to be done to it. I tend to be very damn careful with my devices, I treat them with the ultimate care that they need.
I’ve never broken a phone screen. That’s also not a reason for me to not buy something.
ARM's got a long way to go before it can take on x64 on the desktop. Great as a low power mobile CPU, not so great on the desktop.
iOS is nowhere near a desktop OS competitor, it's simply far too limiting, nothing more than an app launcher. Apple's decision to push their Metal API as opposed to OGL and Vulkan doesn't really matter as macOS and the devices it runs on aren't really great gaming platforms to begin with. Linux smashes macOS as a gaming platform now.
People need to understand that no smartphone is really designed to be repaired, they're all part of our modern 'chuck away society'.
I don't really believe that is true. Maybe for extreme high end power users, but the bottom 99% of users could easily replace their desktop systems with something coming down the arm pipeline. Especially considering that it's already faster than the Apple A12 and I believe the Jaguar cpu's in the ps4 pro and xbox one x.
Pretty much. Especially since Apple decided to no longer support Nvidia Egpu's.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Just wondering because I don't see MacOS going anywhere.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
I still have a iPhone 6s+ and I don't plan to replace it for years. It does everything I need it to do. Oh, and I haven't broken a phone screen either (except a couple weeks ago when I hammered my teenage daughters iPhone to pieces as a reminder that she should listen to me when I tell to put the phone away).
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Get her a Windows 10 Mobile Lumia 950 now, at least she can text and call but that is more or less about it.
A great many Windows users are replacing their desktop systems..With iPads. So you are right, but ARM isn't replacing x64 on the desktop anytime soon and iOS is most certainly not made for the desktop.
Like Microsoft, Apple don't really care for desktop users anymore. Tech is shifting.
Last edited:
macOS runs fine on Arm, and if Intel can't keep up with the pace of Arm development I have no doubt there will one day at least be some Mac's running ARM chips.
Well, there IS a choice in filesystems under Win 10(win XP->win10). Nobody mentioned fat32. Obviously, windows is not strictly tied to NTFS because fat32 exists, and can work. You can even have drives with different filesystems all under the same O/S(E.G mixing NTFS with fat32). Don't know if you're aware of that simple fact, but I'm stating it anyways just incase.
I personally don't really see a point to fat32(I have used it). The best thing to do for 99.9% users would just be to choose NTFS from the start and Zip(7.zip compression format) anything you want to shrink in size. Having a whole drive(possibly including the O/S) formatted as Fat32 will only make that system slower, because of the constant real-time uncompression needed to open/run each file on that disk.
I remember the acronym for NTFS as "New Tech" file system. New Tech in my mind, being the best thing that currently exists(most optimal).
I haven't really ever looked over the code for the NTFS file system. But I imagine by now(WIn10) it's largely been made more efficient & optimal....The 2 things which every programmer seeks with refining his code. I think that, if there were any new competing File systems, they won't really have any crazy noticeable performance boost to be worthy of even noticing, let alone adopting, when compared to NTFS. In other words, I believe NTFS is a good as it gets, and any desired performance boost from the client is simply going to require a boost in hardware power because the software has been pretty much perfected more or less, already. Simple hardware bottleneck.
BTW, what I was trying 2 imply earlier was that fragmentation with NTFS only really was a problem/mattered when combining NTFS + old spindle drive. One of the things I kept consistently reading about when it came to new age SSD tech, was their ability to ignore NTFS fragmentation woes and continue providing the same(high level) amount of performance as a fresh(unfragmented) drive. Basically, any Solid State drive doesn't depend/care about the fragmented state of the files that exist on it, to function optimally.
Last edited:
MS will eventually switch over to using the Linux kernel. Its only logical and the only viable long term option for them.
The only question is when... and will they just keep calling it windows 10 anyway. lol
File systems are zero issue. The only reason the linux kernel has to use fuse for NTFS right now is because MS has not open sourced the NTFS file system. There is nothing stopping MS from open sourcing NTFS and having it mainlined into the kernel before they switch. They would also be crazy not to switch to a better file system like ext4 or btrfs or f2fs or any combination. There really wouldn't be anything stopping them from open sourcing NTFS to support old installs and storage drives ect... and giving users the same type of options every distro does at install. Only I guess NTFS could be added if it was open (heck even if it wasn't MS could build their own fuse like system I guess instead of getting it main lined).
The bottom line is the Linux Kernel would cost around 14-15 billion to recreate. More and more companies are starting to dedicate highly paid programmers to its development. MS can't outspend every other tech company in the world to develop their own OS that only at current has market dominance in one space. Linux is used in many more devices, it has more R&D money being poured into it vs windows, and that is likely going to increase with time not lessen. The disparity in quality is already clear imo... but I think it can't be argued that over time with 2-3x the R&D spend the Linux Kernel is only going to build/pad that advantage.
MS would be wise to start an internal Linux/Windows DE project (if they haven't already... which I believe they have the azure Linux stuff took time to develop I have little doubt MS has a working test version of Lindows internally already)
For most users a windows "11" running a linux kernel with a windows de would look no different from what they are used to. The average user doesn't know squat about all the bits and pieces nuts and bolts. Power users would transition just fine.... as long as MS stuck to proper FHS standards they would find all their configs in /.config as expected. As with people switching the hardest bit is getting people used to not seeing stupid drive letters like C: D: ect. Still most people already have their heads mostly around that thanks to Android and iOS.
As far as software goes... the industry has been moving in general to cross platform frame works and apis for quite a few years. Even MS has been apart of that move with their open sourcing of things like .net ect. They could choose to open source DX... or NOT. Frankly there is nothing stopping them from using the linux kernel and continuing to allow their Lindows to be able to run DX native. What is better then DXVK.... well a Closed Source DX only found on Lindows. Using the Linux kernel doesn't mean they are required to open source their entire OS. They could easily use a MS only DX in place of MESA. If they really want to ensure backwards compatability they could even build their own windows sub system for linux... no need to open source it at all. It would be like an official version of wine that they don't have to distribute. For most modern software a simple recompile would be all that would be needed... and for older software an official wine like system would be no different then "compatability" mode that windows has always had for older version issues.
They would remove the main reasons many many people run Linux over Windows. Their OS would become a lot more secure, although I'm sure they wouldn't be able to resist the urge to include a ton of Meta data capture ect that would likely nullify a lot of the gains in security. Unless they do anything really stupid on their end it would for sure 100% fix the biggest issue windows has... their update system. Which is terrible and makes running modern windows feel like its 1999.
Also one huge plus no one is considering. Ubuntu would no longer be the most hated by Linux nerds distro around.
The only question is when... and will they just keep calling it windows 10 anyway. lol
File systems are zero issue. The only reason the linux kernel has to use fuse for NTFS right now is because MS has not open sourced the NTFS file system. There is nothing stopping MS from open sourcing NTFS and having it mainlined into the kernel before they switch. They would also be crazy not to switch to a better file system like ext4 or btrfs or f2fs or any combination. There really wouldn't be anything stopping them from open sourcing NTFS to support old installs and storage drives ect... and giving users the same type of options every distro does at install. Only I guess NTFS could be added if it was open (heck even if it wasn't MS could build their own fuse like system I guess instead of getting it main lined).
The bottom line is the Linux Kernel would cost around 14-15 billion to recreate. More and more companies are starting to dedicate highly paid programmers to its development. MS can't outspend every other tech company in the world to develop their own OS that only at current has market dominance in one space. Linux is used in many more devices, it has more R&D money being poured into it vs windows, and that is likely going to increase with time not lessen. The disparity in quality is already clear imo... but I think it can't be argued that over time with 2-3x the R&D spend the Linux Kernel is only going to build/pad that advantage.
MS would be wise to start an internal Linux/Windows DE project (if they haven't already... which I believe they have the azure Linux stuff took time to develop I have little doubt MS has a working test version of Lindows internally already)
For most users a windows "11" running a linux kernel with a windows de would look no different from what they are used to. The average user doesn't know squat about all the bits and pieces nuts and bolts. Power users would transition just fine.... as long as MS stuck to proper FHS standards they would find all their configs in /.config as expected. As with people switching the hardest bit is getting people used to not seeing stupid drive letters like C: D: ect. Still most people already have their heads mostly around that thanks to Android and iOS.
As far as software goes... the industry has been moving in general to cross platform frame works and apis for quite a few years. Even MS has been apart of that move with their open sourcing of things like .net ect. They could choose to open source DX... or NOT. Frankly there is nothing stopping them from using the linux kernel and continuing to allow their Lindows to be able to run DX native. What is better then DXVK.... well a Closed Source DX only found on Lindows. Using the Linux kernel doesn't mean they are required to open source their entire OS. They could easily use a MS only DX in place of MESA. If they really want to ensure backwards compatability they could even build their own windows sub system for linux... no need to open source it at all. It would be like an official version of wine that they don't have to distribute. For most modern software a simple recompile would be all that would be needed... and for older software an official wine like system would be no different then "compatability" mode that windows has always had for older version issues.
They would remove the main reasons many many people run Linux over Windows. Their OS would become a lot more secure, although I'm sure they wouldn't be able to resist the urge to include a ton of Meta data capture ect that would likely nullify a lot of the gains in security. Unless they do anything really stupid on their end it would for sure 100% fix the biggest issue windows has... their update system. Which is terrible and makes running modern windows feel like its 1999.
Also one huge plus no one is considering. Ubuntu would no longer be the most hated by Linux nerds distro around.
Last edited:
naib
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,289
Load of twaddle... Stop spreading FUD
This the the point of kernel drivers to abstract aspects of the low level implementation from the higher level usage.
The low level drivers are all very different doing what they need todo. The Linux kernel then provides a VFS to abstract away a large portion of how a FS works to other aspects of the kernel BEFORE getting close to userland
The base of all Linux filesystems is inodes and how they function is why *NIX operating systems do not need to reboot to apply OS updates (running kernel and init are the exception)
The octal permissions are all part of the inodes structure. ACL is part of the shadow inode structure, each on a file or directory basis.
Filesystems are NOT "backported" to newer distros as you put it because it is "broken" .. on the fly filesystem changes are quite hard due to the unique disk structure. Some have a forward upgrade path (ext -> ext2 -> ext3 -> ext4 -> btrfs) and equally can be mounted using the older drivers.
All distros receive support for the newer filesystems are the drivers are part of the kernel so of the developers compile btrfs THEN an updated distro could use btrfs
As to applications .. load of twaddle again. Data is data and older programp will quite happily get written to newer filesystems BECAUSE the kernel abstracts this ...
Now windows going to Linux.... Their NTFS permissions are quite different from the octal+ACL used on Linux BUT are comparable and again a program does not actually needs these to operate, these exist for security
The massive EVIDENCE as to why what you wrote is FUD is wine... Windows programs being written to a wide range of filesystems (openzfs, btrfs, ext1,2,3,4, bcachefs...) And WORKING because the applications do not care
There is a small subset of programs that do need to know the specifics of the underlying FS and will only work for their supported FS and these are security audit tools or low level FS management/recovery tools
So could Microsoft change its filesystem for Windows ? Of course... MS has done this quite a few times FAT12, FAT16,FAT32, NTFS ... In fact there has been multiple versions of NTFS but what I said about Linux is also true for Windows... Applications do not care (whether windows has the same thing as a VFS I don't know nor care). Could MS come out with a new FS for Windows? Sure exFAT not too long ago but what about a new FS that supports NTFS ACL? It's been a long time since I dealt with NTFS at sector level so I do not know where this is stored but this is again moot as the applications do not care and if MS did, they would just need to expose a similar ACL (or just do what statis does and userland wrap XFS to provide next gen functionality)
Tl;Dr
You are wrong, stop spreading FUD
Last edited: