Microsoft enables Linux GUI applications in Windows 10 .... TF?

[Axman]

For now, watch and wait .

Eh, I think they just want to give small and medium businesses the ability to run free Linux software in an otherwise Windows ecosystem. Because the costs of running Windows as a server aren't really expensive, the clients are a one-time fee, but if a company needs software that's either Linux-only, or expensive to license on Windows machines, they'll lose sales to companies who go the more difficult rout of setting up Linux servers.

 

[Verado]

So none of these fanbois understands that linux as a desktop OS is about to get even more irrelevant, huh?

 

[idiomatic]

Worse, the massive deployment management systems and automation tools are all MS Linux, MS Server only. And your boss buys them to help you manage the datacenter.

 

[defaultluser]

Seems kinda pointless until they add native support for EXT4

About the only native Linux apps anyone feels the need to use on Windows
are the low-level disk management type (everything else has a capable Windows port already)

And if you're going to entice users to use Disk management GUIs on Windows, then you need to bring with them a more complete array of Filesystem options (support both ends, or they will just boot up a live CD)

You can't really do server management with that same missing disk; what makes it even worse is WSL can't see Windows Network shares,!

https://superuser.com/questions/112...nted-network-drive-on-windows-linux-subsystem

They need go fix the filesystem mess before anyone is going to take it seriously!

 

[DukenukemX]

So none of these fanbois understands that linux as a desktop OS is about to get even more irrelevant, huh?

I doubt it, but that doesn't mean Microsoft can't fuck with Linux distros. Microsoft could impose standards to whatever they create, like an app installer or using DX12. I can see Ubuntu going with Microsoft on whatever they create, but I can see a lot of people dumping Ubuntu. I mention Ubuntu since they're the ones working closely with Microsoft on their Linux venture. Ubuntu hasn't been the most popular distro for some time, as MX Linux/Manjaro/Mint have been on top for a while.

I use Linux for the same reasons why I use Open-WRT on my routers and LineageOS for my Android devices, and that's because it's open source. I don't want any secrets hidden between me and my OS. Whatever Microsoft uses from Linux will likely continue to be closed source, which defeats the purpose of using Linux. I also like the freedom I get with Linux, unlike Windows.

This is the sort of thing I'd be concerned Microsoft's interest in Linux may result. For all the discussion of fragmentation in the Linux world, compatibility is usually only an issue of changing packaging, libraries or the like which are mostly FOSS.

That's something most people don't understand with Linux in that the fragmentation isn't a bad thing and it's mostly standard. MX Linux and Ubuntu are both based on Debian and for the most part work the same, but with different software and defaults. Manjoro is just Arch but made easier and pretty. Mint and ElementaryOS are just Ubuntu with different UI's and default software and therefore Debian. EndeavourOS is another one based on Arch but a different kind of pretty and default software. I just named all the most popular Linux distros out there, which are based on Debian and Arch with the exception of Fedora and OpenSuse.

Having someone like Microsoft come in and create a proprietary "standard" fork which is now the new focus, if proprietary, could be harmfully disruptive, causing a much bigger choice between functionality and libre/openness than ever before . Now, its possible MS could do everything FOSS with a license to ensure that, deciding they're going to focus their monetization on support and services - something with which they're already familiar in the business world . This would be commendable and truly give back to the FOSS community , but I worry that a faux-attempt or other half measure at best would be more likely at this point. So there's a mountain of skepticism to overcome and a lot of steps to be taken for Microsoft to really be favoring Linux and the libre ethos, but if it could happen it would be a tremendous boon to the whole community. For now, watch and wait .

Microsoft could eventually take what was open source and just close it up, which would be equally as problematic. Lets say Microsoft makes DX12 open source, and over time the Linux community adopts DX12 instead of Vulkan. Lets just say that happens. Then DX13 is released but isn't open source, but now the community is knee deep in Direct3D dependence. This could take 10 years but by then the community doesn't have the knowledge and experience to work with Vulkan. You can also have the same problems with a package management system since not every distro uses the same, and then Microsoft steps in with theirs. The same problem with libraries for the same reason, because not all distros use the same version of libraries. Microsoft could easily step in and with the power of money they could fix these problems but at the cost of pushing Linux to their ecosystem. At that point Microsoft couldn't care what Linux OS you use since they'll be able to make money with all the telemetry data they collect. The only reason anyone makes an OS today is to collect telemetry data and force people into a ecosystem. Android is totally open source and yet Google seems to have no problem in controlling that ecosystem.