Comments Locked

53 Comments

Back to Article

  • Kevin G - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    This seems weird, as if hell itself has frozen over.

    This goes alongside the HP Lovecraft story of things-that-should-not-be called MS SQL Server for Linux.
  • jenesuispasbavard - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    This is great news. Updating packages on Ubuntu on Windows takes significantly longer than on native Ubuntu. And maybe I can finally mount a WebDAV folder in the WSL root instead of having to mount it in Windows and then accessing that from WSL.
  • peevee - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    I am not sure it is such a great news. It's to be seen if the WSL2 compatible with Windows-based VPN software from, say, Cisco. It would be funny if I can get to corporate git from Win but not from WSL.

    And where the hell is Fedora/Centos/RH branch?
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Interesting changes indeed, but it might make more sense for Microsoft to simply discontinue running an internally built OS and instead join the Linux community by evolving Windows into a Linux-based operating system in much the same way Apple and Google do. It would be a big change, but a lot of the emulation work for backwards compatibility is already there through WINE. MS is the only holdout these days in the PC/server space.
  • HardwareDufus - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    because everything must be assimilated?

    and think how much easier it will be for hackers and malware folks to only have to focus on one kernel. they will be so much more destructive.... sorry, I meant productive....
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Windows is already the prime target for malware so the single target situation is status quo already.

    At any rate, it looks like Microsoft is self-assimilating already. The company contributes significant code to the open source community and I think you're seeing things like WSL as baby steps in the general direction of moving to something Linux-based. It might be a moonshot project MS is keeping under wraps, but I believe that development will be less expensive if Microsoft leaves their current OS model behind and I feel it is likely someone in Redmond isn't tallying up the costs and benefits of making the transition at some point in the future. After all, it's clear that Microsoft wants to draw revenue from the Store and through user data monetization rather than through software sales. If the operating system is not going to generate revenue (ala Windows 10 on-going, incremental release schedule), it should at least cost as little as possible to create.
  • nevcairiel - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    There is way too much tech debt in desktop, 3D, multimedia, and whatnot on Linux, it would take years to get all of those components into a shape where it would even be "equal", nevermind that "Windows" would stagnate for that time.

    The entire WSL approach is not for "users", its for developers. They want developers to choose Windows, and they know that many tools work only, or at least better, on Linux. So they offer a combined effort. This has absolute no indications of wanting to abandon the NT kernel or anything of that sort. Thats never going to happen. Microsoft has always been rather religious about backwards compat for everything, and such a move would put that in serious jeopardy.

    In before "this is the year of the Linux Desktop" crowd going ham on this comment.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    It didn't take Google all that long to build an ecosystem around the Linux kernel....twice if you count Chrome OS. Microsoft is in an even better position to navigate that sort of change and, since the current kernel is closed source, I wonder how much of it is borrowed from Linux already. At the moment, there's no indication that we aren't already relying on some *nix-derived core under current Windows.
  • alumine - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    That's simply not how it works. First, Apple's kernel isn't a Linux kernel - it's XNU, derived originally from Mach (which is NOT Linux).

    Second - what's wrong with the NT kernel? So far it's still the most popular desktop platform (not talking embedded of course), and it has generated billions to MS. Also consider Azure and the Xbox (which runs an NT kernel).

    Third - Chrome OS - can you *really* call that a success?

    Fourth - why the hell would you compete in the already crowded Linux space, with an open source kernel anyone can modify and suddenly become your competitor whilst you have an offering NO ONE ELSE can offer AND it's successful to boot?

    Fifth - security - what makes you think Linux is more secure? This is the same argument MacOS fanboys spout ("we don't get viruses"). Given the market share (although Android is now making it super large) it's just not worthwhile unless you target the very high end (banking institutions, government, etc) and even then as far as I'm aware you rarely target the OS kernel itself.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    1 - It's BSD Unix - already discussed below, but you're splitting a lot of hair to support getting yourself upset.
    2 - Nothing at all. Where did I say there was something wrong with it? Please quote me exactly.
    3 - Yes
    4 - MS wants to monetize stuff other than the OS itself. Also, seems to work fine for Google.
    5 - I didn't make a claim about Linux being more secure.
  • alumine - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    1. Unix =/= Linux. Posix compliance is another matter.
    2. Then why would you need to change this?
    3. So you would call a less than 1.5% marketshare in the desktop space successful? Compared to a 76.17% marketshare?
    4. Correct - other stuff e.g. services, Office, other products. But would you dump a revenue income AND alienate your current large userbase using a, let's admit this, less than perfect emulation compared to the real thing?
    5. Sorry I think someone else did - and for some reason I thought it was yours.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    playing games made for windows on an emulator ( wine ) vs playing them in windows where they were programmed for ? no thanks.... wine does work.. but its not 100% its like trying to play some old dos based games on DOSbox for example.. some work just fine.,.. others.. you need to tweak them and find user found fixes to get them to work...
  • PeachNCream - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    True, WINE is a pain in the backside. I use it quite regularly and when something works out of the box without fooling around with obscure configuration changes and otherwise unnecessary tweaks, it's time to break out the party gear since that's such a rare thing. I'm not saying WINE is ready for prime time, but if Microsoft throws some weight behind some of those bits and pieces like WINE that are already in place, there might be enough momentum to get the company over the hump of a major change at the kernel level until software catches up. It's not like there haven't been issues like this before (9x to NT was one of those humps that had to be overcome though I will absolutely concede that is a lesser degree of change).
  • jimbo2779 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    If MS made a linus based OS it would be very trivial for competitors to almost perfectly emulate everything make MS irrelevant in the OS space in a very short space of time.

    There are a number of very significant reasons why they would be incredibly foolish to go that route.
  • PeachNCream - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    Why? They can keep their source closed. Linux doesn't automatically entail open source.
  • Near - Saturday, May 25, 2019 - link

    1. Linux is a clone of Unix.
    2. It cost money to patch and maintain the NT kernel, for little money in return. Unless you think the next version of Windows will cost money?
    3. 76.76% and decreasing. Global stats have Android (Linux) neck and neck with windows. Developers have been switching too Mac and Linux for the past few years. 2018 was the year that Windows developers where around 49% of the developers. This year they make up 47% of developers according to Stackoverflow survey.
    4. Microsoft could slowly switch the NT kernel for a Linux Kernel overtime. A good amount Office 365, SQL, etc of that software is also already running on a *nix kernel (Android, iOS, and Mac). The future is cloud software which Linux is the main supported OS.
    5. Security is relative to the software. The more people that use it the higher the vector for targeted malware. However, Linux has a number of companies and communities patching and submitting changes.

    Microsoft isn't making as much money off their Windows OS like they use to. They have switched to providing Cloud and AI services for their primary revenue.
  • baka_toroi - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I'm gonna find out who you are and punch you in the nose if Windows becomes Linux.
  • mooninite - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Why on earth would it be a bad thing? You hate change? If such a thing even occurred you would probably not even see anything change.
  • baka_toroi - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I would notice. I can smell Linux's shittyness from a 10 miles distance. Everything running over Linux runs worse than on Windows. The only thing Linux does better is procuring a horde of apologists claiming it's the enduser's fault when something breaks or that my use scenario is not what I really want.

    I hate change when it's for the worse which is exactly what Linux provides: a worse experience overall.

    Cue the retards claiming it's better for servers or supercomputers, as if I give a shit about it.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Yup, we've found a live one here. I'm not interested in preaching about operating systems. As you're proving, they can be a bit of a religion which incites the usual hormone-fueled crusade emotions. I do think Linux has a few niches where it works out quite well, but its not for everyone (unless you've got an Android in your pocket which is another debate entirely, heh). However, if any single company can put the Linux kernel to good use and dress it up so that the end user can just click their icons, play video games, and veg out on Facebook, Microsoft would be it - at least in the PC space. We all know what happened to Windows on phones.
  • FormerRedHead - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I would take Oracle on Linux any day over Windows. WebLogic, Jboss, or WebSphere, too, for that matter. And PowerShell does not hold a candle to what one can do with bash.
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    Every windows user now hates change..you saw the huge blowback from simply changing to win 10 in the first place. Linux is and will always be more of a geek OS. Pretty evident by now.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    You're going to blow a blood vessel in your brain being wrapped up that tightly over software.
  • baka_toroi - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    You're right about that. I need to go live in the countryside before it gets to that point, using a single computer running nothing but FreeDOS.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I don't believe this mean that Windows is becoming Linux based OS, just that it allows Windows to Host Linux subsystem in it environment. One can run Linux Applications without dual booting Windows. Older version of Windows did this with OS/2 subsystem and where is OS/2 today.
  • mooninite - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Your analogy is wrong and also wildly out of date. IBM OS/2 was not open source. Not being driven by multiple players either. Windows did have a Unix subsystem at one point, too, and now it is all coming back.

    I don't understand the comments on this article. Windows fanboys (fanboys are still a thing?) are scared to hell about this... ? :-/
  • Reflex - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    macOS is BSD based, not Linux.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Yes, but we are talking about branches of the same tree here. BSD is probably the weirdest branch of Unix (I suspect pot had something to do with it) with System V and Linux being arguably more closely aligned to one another, but there are still lots of shared principals and thinking. iOS as well as it's another OSX/BSD critter.
  • Reflex - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Um, no we aren't talking about branches of the same tree. Linux is a completely different design and architecture than true UNIX, of which BSD is a direct branch of. Linux was implemented from scratch as a POSIX compliant OS, it uses a monolithic kernel architecture and works on a different set of principles. There is often binary compatibility, but that is true of a lot of operating systems, for instance Windows NT and later has also been POSIX compliant and long had a full subsystem for POSIX applications (Unix apps could run on Windows).

    BSD and Linux are as different from each other as Windows and Linux are. And historically speaking, BSD is not the 'weird one' in the family.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Sure.
  • prophet001 - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    LOL

    You're joking right?
  • domboy - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    @prophet001 - who/what are you addressing with your "you're joking" question?
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    That'd be me. And I'm not joking, just tossing out a theory about the future. While I will gladly admit that I'm wrong if nothing comes of it, the pieces are slowly falling into place and there is certainly a possibility it may happen.
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    What pieces? Microsoft for a long time has made certain things open source. A console in a windows OS and that is the pieces? lol Everything they do is not to sway towards linux, its to sway people away from linux.
  • linuxgeex - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    OSX is not based on Linux. It's based on MacOS + their version of the Mach microkernel. It has more DNA in common with BSD and NeXT.
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Wow, dog pile on that one. That's not central to the point I was making. With Microsoft cooking up Linux support and attempting to cut costs because the OS is not as directly monetized through license sales (yes nitpickers, it's still a big part, but MS is chasing a software store) the company is clearly seeking other revenue streams. Cheaping out on OS development by switching the underlying guts over to Linux makes sense. Dabbling with Linux is an indicator of that potential direction and (back to Apple, you nitpickers) given everyone else out there is *nix-based already, Microsoft is behind the times and late to the party. That might change soon enough.

    That's the point of my original post, not to piss into the wind with you people about Apple's kernel and the fact that it's just lifted BSD code. If you want to nerd out about that, talk to an actual nerd, not someone like me that doesn't do anything technical at all because I'm only focused on the finance and dividend chunk of the puzzle.
  • imaheadcase - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    What are you talking about? No one in right mind thinks that is a good idea. The reason windows exists is because of ease of use vs linux based system no matter what UI they put on it. I mean case in point its a console being transferred over to windows system..that alone should tell you it will never work.

    You do know windows primary function is ease of use right? lol
  • PeachNCream - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    *shrug* I'm only tossing out theories. Given the response, it's clear that a lot of people are feeling awfully insecure and highly emotional about something that will happen at a level of code far beneath their notice. It's interesting to say the least, how much certain people have invested in something as meaningless as the OS that runs the programs they use. The underlying OS's job is to act as an intermediary between a program you're executing and the hardware that will run it. Why is a change that will likely be fairly invisible to the end user worth the emotions? And even more to the point, why is someone tossing out a theory (someone that has literally no control over what will actually happen at Redmond's campus) worth so much feeling?
  • jimbo2779 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    The "feelings", as you put it, are likely more a result of a silly theory being banded despite obvious reasons for the contrary and also because the person stating that theory ignoring counter points.

    Often a debate turns into an argument not because of the topic at hand but because of the way in which a person is debating that topic.
  • Lord of the Bored - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    I certainly hope they don't. We have too few choices of operating system already. Everything is a Unix derivative or Windows. I'm actually hoping the great Linux monolith shatters and some portion of that market goes in other directions(it is probably too much to hope that they eschew copying Unix entirely).
  • bigvlada - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    Windows won't be assimilated into Linux community. In worst case scenario for Microsoft, it goes open source and acts similar to ReactOS.
  • peevee - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    "into a Linux-based operating system in much the same way Apple and Google do."

    Yeah, because Linux has been such a success on desktop and laptop. NOT AT ALL.
    And Apple does not use Linux, and Google uses only very modified kernel under layers and layers of very non-Linux stuff.
  • bigjeff5 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link

    The major problem with this is backwards compatibility. This the primary reason MS dominates the desktop market. You can expect old programs to continue to run in new versions. Programs written 20 years ago still run in Windows 10 (we actually use one like this). That's no the case with e.g. Mac OS. Linux is better about this, but even many Linux distros don't particularly care about backwards compatibility.

    If MS switches to Linux wholesale like that, 90% of old programs (hell, EXISTING programs) will break. Then why would anybody choose MS? The day MS goes full Linux is the day MS stops being relevant in the desktop space.

    Integrating Linux into Windows, on the other hand, makes them MORE relevant in the PC and server market. Anybody who must use Windows and Linux on a regular basis will be inclined to think "why do I need a separate Linux OS? I can just do it all in Windows now." Doubly so if they can make firing up a Linux session quick and convenient.

    Frankly, assuming they can get performance high enough (which they are clearly focusing on), it even makes efforts like WINE almost irrelevant by solving the problem from the other direction.

    This and MS's efforts to get native compatibility with ARM based processors are real steps to ensuring Windows will remain the dominant platform for the foreseeable future.
  • CraigInAustin - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    This IS pretty much a good thing for humans, and I mean all of us. The theoretical upside to market driven capitalism and pure socialist GPL licensing has been at an impasse for too long and an impediment to the future internet of things which is at the heart of limitless potential. Personally, I am going to participate in bridging this divide in a big way.
  • domboy - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I kind of like how the current WSL works in that it's not a full-blown VM, so I'll be interested to see how this change affects how WSL functions and how linux processes run (wonder if they'll still be visible on the windows side aka task manager). But as long as I can still setup an a WSL instance to start at system boot I'll be ok.
  • Os2 - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Windows phone is what this is. A little late wouldnt you say Nelly ? Micrograft is a joke. They going the way of IBM and General Electric. I think you should spend more on marketing. Maybe give Nelly a couple of bonuses since hes such a genius! This must be his idea.
  • baka_toroi - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    >I think you should spend more on marketing.
    I don't think there's a corporation with a worse marketing department than MS.
  • Speedfriend - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 - link

    Aah, yes poor Microsoft, nearly bankrupt, nearly gone - if it wasn't for that pesky trillion dollar market cap....
  • 1_rick - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    Oddly enough, you have been able to run X applications under Windows since the WSL came out (or maybe since Ubuntu was released for it, I can't remember which, exactly.) Use apt to install an X server and then get Xming. Hardware acceleration I could never get working but if you could live without, you could run a browser, Xemacs, even xscreensaver (although nobody tell JWZ.)
  • LordConrad - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    I hope this won't hog resources for those not using this feature. I have no plans or need to run linux in Windows.
  • bloodgain - Tuesday, May 7, 2019 - link

    It won't. You have to install the WSL as a component, and even the Windows Terminal (which supports, but doesn't require WSL) has to be installed from Windows Store. Even with WSL installed, it should only take up a little disk space when not in use, like any other application or Windows component.
  • Near - Saturday, May 25, 2019 - link

    It seems odd to maintain two separate Kernels in one OS. It increase the complexity, security requirements, and cost of maintaining the OS. Even worse it makes windows even more bloated. IMO, I don't see the NT Kernel lasting much longer, as developers are switching to *nix kernels.
  • rahulghose - Thursday, March 17, 2022 - link

    Yeah really, I had similar thoughts https://blog.rghose.in/2021/04/microsoft-windows-l...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now