This is an advantage with any software, open source or other models, what it needs is for far fewer containers to run the software in I would hate to think how many "current" distros of Linux are out there competing with each other, for their current combined tiny share of the desktop market . At the same time they are competing against Microsoft and Apple who have 98% of the desktop market.
Hi there
For desktop usage Linux still has ways to go -- but as a SERVER it can't really be beaten -- it still has by the far majority of the Server (and Cloud) market.
Windows has limitations as a desktop since it's essentially a Single User system -- that for probably 99% of its intended users is not an issue.
On a lean Linux server for example I defy any Windows desktop OS to run as many VM's concurrently and efficiently as I can do on a Linux server.
The other advantage (although could be a mess if not decently controlled) is that being Open Source it's usually a lot quicker to get fixes and applications out than with the conventional Windows development cycle with its proprietary closed source.
If you are happy with Windows -- nothing wrong at all in using it -- most people don't need a Linux desktop --that's not to say that some are happy to have one.
As far as Windows is concerned - the only things I use on it are OFFICE 2019 including Project 2019) -- the clones of Office are reasonably good but particularly for Project and Excel --nothing else comes close, Photoshop, Video capturing hardware, SKY GO, and SAP GUI for accessing work based SAP systems -- all these run very nicely on Windows VM's for me -- I'm not a gamer etc and all my multi media and data are stored on a Linux server. Web development and Internet serving can be done easily on a Linux platform with WordPress and a L.A.M.P server so even for web development Windows isn't a necessity for some any more.
Others have different usages -- for serious gaming Windows currently is the only real possibilty although with better pass thru of hardware it won't be long before a Virtual version of Windows will be just as good in every way as the "Real" version running on "Real hardware".
Cheers
jimbo
I'm hoping they scrap the Windows kernel and replace it with Linux.
Keep the UI, but drop the kernel.
It'll perform better. MUCH better.
And they won't have the expense of supporting the kernel!
They could call in Lindows. Or Winux.
I'd call it Good.
I'd be careful what you ask for, Microsoft could take a leaf out of the apple book of tricks ...
"Develop" a linux kernel for windows, copyright & patent it, then charge everyone who use linux for the privilege of using their Intellectual Property
As @Barman58 says "be careful for what you wish for".
There actually was a "Lindows" but I think this somehow fell foul of some patents / copyright law
Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc. - Wikipedia.
You can actually get some Linux distros that have a GUI / Window manager as they are called in "Linux Speak" that is almost More Windows than Windows. W95 is also still around as a Windows Manager if you really want a "Retro Look" on a Linux desktop.
Most of the problem though in developing any sort of "Sensible Desktop" version of Linux to replace Windows is the sheer variation of hardware that runs on Windows -- Linux works best essentially as a Server system --OK if you use Windows with just things like Office / email / browsers then any Linux desktop will work just fine --but once you start into gaming and other eseoteric stuff then it's a whole different ballgame.
I get away with it as I don't run much on Windows at all and what I do run works very well inside a Virtual Machine - but for around 90% of Windows users they just boot up their systems and it JUST WORKS. With Linux - you have to be prepared to do a lot more and really most people can't be bothered --they just want to switch on their device and start using it. This means a HUGE amount of development not only with the Windows software itself but also with the hardware manufacturersd --they will always prefer to deal with say a central company e.g Ms rather than a whole myriad of different people supplying various Linux distros.
Use Linux as a desktop if you wish --but get real --it's not going to replace Windows any time soon --If ever.
Cheers
jimbo
I don't want somebody else's Linux. I want Microsoft Linux.
As for having to be prepared to do a lot more ... nope, let Microsoft do this.
If they can get a monster like Windows running, they can get Linux running.
It's already on my PC now. It's just a second OS. I just want them to make the the first OS.
The issue here is not "could they", but "would they".
Say what you will about Microsoft but they do employ some good technical coders so the answer to "Could They" is a "Yes".
Then we have the other question "would they", this would depend on what Microsoft would get out of what would be a major turnaround and resultant financial investment, (or gamble to put it another way). Microsoft are not exactly scraping around for their next "Buck" so any new venture would have to either save a large amount of Money or Make a larger amount of money.
If there is a benefit to Microsoft that they deem worthwhile then who knows it may happen but it would not happen quickly, It could be somewhere along the line of development already, I first heard of a potential plan for a new core for windows a lot of years ago, I'm not one of the insiders, (well I am part of the Insider program but not at the levels that would be read into anything this big), indeed there are likely to be several options already written and working, but until Microsoft has a financial reason to go any further they will I think remain at the stage they are
Yes, this would be driven by financial benefit. I think that would happen by eliminating the need to maintain the Windows kernel.
I know that this is an idle wish. But time will tell.
Quote