Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Could Microsoft switch to Linux?

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft

You'd expect, as my friend Preston Gralla did, that when someone says "proprietary software is eventually going to be doomed," and that Microsoft's future might best be served in releasing its own version of Linux, that he'd be a Linux fan. Wrong: this prophet of Windows doom and gloom was Keith Curtis, a former Microsoft Research staffer. Could he be right? I think the answer is yes and no.

Yes, proprietary software is on the decline. Forget about the free software ideology that holds that free access to code is morally right: businesses have figured out that not only does open source tend to produce better code, it's cheaper to produce it. Economic reality has made even Microsoft to, ever so reluctantly, embrace some open-source projects.

Sure, you have to share the fruits of your efforts in open-source development — but you end up creating better code faster. As many developers have discovered, it's a lot easier to build on top of other programmers' good work than waste time with proprietary software development's constant reinvention of the wheel.

Rest Here




Isn't that the oldfashioned mantra we're have been taught...

... to believe in?

"You need proprietary technology of methods or design to protect your intellectual properties."

Besides "intellectual property" being one of the most obscure of terms, since when do you need proprietary stuff to protect your so called intellectual properties? Why make an incoherent mess as if patents, copyright and licences are the same?

Library and compilers are used by proprietary software as well, it's not like every software developer is creating his/her own set of libraries and compilers. If it's shared or not doesn't change it's license. I can get proprietary software which depends on none-proprietary libraries. If they're installed system wide as shared ones or bundled together with the proprietary parts is quite irrelevant.

...

PCI buses replaced by USB 3.0? This doesn't make any sense at all. USB 3.0 is connected to some bus. As for USB 3.0 you need to use a PCI-Express bus at least, something that at the moment means adjustments to motherboard design, because traditionally you didn't have channels and hence bandwidth enough for full throughput of what we now will have, Sata 6.0 and USB 3.0. An USB 3.0 interface can't live its own life and hence it can't replace the channel its connected to.

...

"Linux kernels can not do internet yet; it needs a browser for Linux." Damn, all Linux systems without a browser are isolated from networks! What you write doesn't make any sense here; what has MS Sharepoint to do with a pure Linux kernel in the first place?

To me it looks like you had a too good Friday night.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more