It’s funny to watch everyone freak out about Microsoft “putting a REAL Linux kernel into Windows”.
You’re literally getting excited over a virtual machine, calm down. It’s not like they will change Windows’ architecture or abandon WinNT.

  • 11
    Thank god, they don't go full on Linux, that crap.
  • 10
    You need to be a little more subtle to bait us.
  • 13
    @metamourge not from previous experience
  • 12
    i disagree. actually all signs are leading me (and not only me) to conclude that MS will begin working on replacing their NT kernel with the linux kernel before the middle of the next decade. i have a lot to back up this seemingly super bold claim but i'm on my phone right now and typing all that is desireble in my eyes just as much as leaving my macbbook and my linux machines and returning to Windows
  • 4
    I use WSL because it's more lightweight than a fully fledged virtual machine. I'm pretty stoked about being able to debug a container launched by make via vscode in windows.

    I prefer linux, but being flexible in teams always comes first. That's where I've started to become more reliant on WSL.
  • 4
    I'll never understand why people take this shit so seriously. Like that's lame. It's (going to be) a job that pays well and that I like to do, not my life.
  • 8
    I would love Windows to replace NT with the Linux kernel.
    That would mean all games for Linux!
  • 5
    by the way, regarding my previous comment - if anyone want me to share my insight into this - just ask...but it'll be a long, detailed and well versed comment that might be tiring to read for people who didn't ask for it, so i would not like to impose such a long read on someone who didn't ask for it
  • 6
    I apologise to anyone not interested. But @LinusTor, please do post your findings. I'm going to be talking a lot about this, and would love to have something to back it up
  • 7
    @KasperNS i'll start typing now, hope to finish before they actually make the switch from NT kernel to Linux ^_^
  • 4
    @LinusTor haha I hope so too :P and thank you :)
  • 10
    ok, so as @KasperNS requested, let's go over a few FACTS, and then i'll provide my opinions regarding them:
    ~~~THIS IS PART ONE~~~
    A. The previous MS CEO Steve Ballmer openly professed his hate towards linux on several occasions, most remembered is the statement that "linux is a cancer", their current CEO Satya Nadella openly claims the EXACT opposite, and on several occasions in the last two years MS high ranking execs have attested MS's love of linux and the world of open source.
    B. About a year (and a half?) ago MS announced its first ^LINUX-BASED^ OS for IOT devices/apps, Azure-Sphere.
    C. In the last year alone MS made extremely huge steps towards the open source world, to name a few: joining the Open Invention Network (OIN), an alliance of numerous companies, including tech giants that basically acts as a multi-lateral treaty among it's members to not file law-suites against other members for using their intellectualy property released under the umbrella of the OIN.
    PT.2 FOLLOWS..
  • 10
    ~~~PART TWO~~~
    continuation of clause C: They also open sourced DOS in its entirety, and several modern windows apps, joined as a member of a linux foundation (you know...they guys that PAYS Linus Torvalds's salaray), announced joint partnerships with Red Hat etc....
    D. MS ditched the failing Edge browser in favor the upcoming chromium-based new browser (that will strangely will also be called Edge #marketingFacepalm), meaning, a browser BASED ON OPEN SOURCE.
    E. shortly after publically releasing Win10 MS dimembered its Windows QA teams, as budget cuts to Windows and bases its QA on Windows Insiders, hence the numerous Win Update bugs...MS just cares less and less of its closed-source proprietary OS and wishes to invest its resources in Azure and subscription based services such as Office365.
    AND IT IS WORKING INCREDIBLY WELL for them, as MS's recentrly surpassed Apple in having the greatest net worth, and exeeded the 1 trilion dollar mark (and counting...).
  • 9
    ~~~PART THREE~~~
    These have been the facts..now to my personal insight:
    MS claims they are starting to be in love with open source, and really act on it, openly and seriously, and invest huge sums of money and resources to it. they relinquish rights to intellectual claims in favor of open source use.
    They ceased development of what was once one of their flagships and hallmarks: a "Made By Microsoft" web browser in favor of using an open source browser, guess what happened to the jobs of those who used to develop Edge...
    They employ ZERO Q.A testers on windows before releasing major (or minor) updates, instead they rely on suckers who are paying for the licensed to use a buggy half-baked operating system partially updated.
    They open themselves to the open source market not simply because their new CEO is a good person, after all MS is rational, for-profit company, its aim is to cut costs and increase income, the clearest way to do that, regarding Windows will be detailed in part 4
  • 3
    Or short they think they can make more money wit this decision.
  • 4
    @LinusTor very interesting. Don’t know how an open source operating system is compatible with their philosophy though, with them using windows as an advertising platform and data gathering device for PRISM. I’m very skeptical, but as you said, recent history might indicate that they’re moving into the right direction.

    Still, I believe that the hype around WSL 2 is a bit of an overreaction.
  • 4
    @RantSomeWhere They can still use Windows as an advertising and data gathering platform, nothing stopping them from that. Now it'll just be clear as day to anyone looking through the codebase.
  • 11
    The most clear cut way to achive what i spoke about in part 3 is to stop developing the NT kernel.
    employing all the developers and the entire production facilities required for such a task is a huge drain on a not-so-profitable-anymore activity, There is already a kernel, which is actually much more widly used than the NT kernel, it's battle proven, tested, incredibly well maintained and developed by thousands upon thousands of people which Microsoft DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY A SINGLE DOLLAR for. it's free, it's open source, and MS can do whatever it wants with it. instead of the army of internal developers they can employ a few small teams to join the Linux development community and join forces with basically the rest of the entire freaking world...almost free of charge. Satya Nadella is a smart man, MS is a smart company, they know very well what they are doing...it's all pointing in that direction.

    thank you for bearing with me :)
  • 4
    @LinusTor Gotta say, you make some really interesting points, none of which I can argue against off the top of my head. Great work! Now I just have one question:

    Where did you gather all this information? Read some article about it, or just pieces you've gathered here and there?
  • 6
    @KasperNS Thank you! I hope you have what you were looking for in my 2 (or 2,000) cents regarding this.

    as for your question: as a tech junkie i regularly follow youtube channels regarding operating systems (mainly linux), I also read articles on my daily train commute to work or on long sits at the toilet ;) it's basically one of my main fields of interest
  • 1
    @LinusTor Well I'm for one really happy you've gathered all that information :D And well I have one more question if it's okay.

    Reading your two(thousand) cents on this, really has gotten me interested in knowing more about it, and possibly write an article about it. Would you mind if I use this as a basis for that?

    Oh and a disclaimer: It's not like I'm a huge journalist or anything, I just like to write. And I know if I write an article about this, I'll end up pulling a lot of your points into it
  • 2
    @KasperNS LOL
    if that wasn't already obvious - I'm all for the open source side, feel free to take as much as you want from these comments, knowledge and information should be free as much as possible. I won't even ask for a credit...also, if you'd want any help with that - feel free to contact me privately (if it's possible on DevRant...i'm still a newcommer here)
  • 2
    @LinusTor Haha yeah I should've figured :D

    But no sadly messaging isn't a feature on DevRant yet. Do you maybe have Twitter or something where I can contact you?

    And of course, welcome to DevRant!
  • 2
    @KasperNS thank you :)
    twitter is not so widly used in my country, I'm on facebook: Guy Rysher
    I think I'm the only person of FB with that name lol...
  • 3
    @LinusTor Fair enough. Well perhaps I'll ask you for advice at some point. Right now I'm just hyped for Linux on Windows, we'll see if I actually get to writing about it.
  • 2
    @KasperNS I'll be happy to help as much as I can with anything I can. Even if you won't need my help let me know if you do publish eventually, I'll look forward to reading it
  • 1
  • 5
    @RantSomeWhere first of all sorry for BASHing (pun intended ^_^) with a discussion you had no intention of starting..lol

    now, to your response: first of all philosophies can be switched, as they clearly did, from "linux is a cancer" to "MS loves open source", and Azure Shpere..and everything else i talked about.
    But you probably ment their monetary and competitive philosophy - This field won't have to change one bit to incorporate a change in kernels. the kernel itself is just the component that allows the OS to control hardware resources and translate program instructions to machine code for the CPU, etc. most users, even relatively advanced users, will hardly EVER even notice that change, since it's a low level, actually the lowest level possible. the kernel has nothing to do with PRISM or the NSA, that shit comes from a much higher level of the OS which they could still keep running even with the new kernel
  • 1
    @LinusTor no, I don’t mind interesting discussions at all, no hard feelings.

    What I’m hinting at is that as soon as they switch kernels (and philosophies) and decide to release their source code (which I’m pretty sure they’re required to do if they ship with Linux), their business model won’t work anymore.
  • 6
    @RantSomeWhere they are not even remotely required to completely open source their entire code base.
    Think of it this way: Those set-top boxes of cable companies are closed-source systems based on linux, Android itself is open source but almost all apps you run on it are closed source, most smart-TV operating systems are closed source linux-based, IOT devices, digital refrigerators, and so on and so on...all of these things use linux as a kernel, except Android none of them is open source.
    Don't mix system applications with the OS itself, or even the OS itself with the actual kernel, which is only one component (even if the most important) of an operating system.
    If you donate a kidney to a stranger, or god forbid even your heart after you die, that person that recieved the organ transplantation doesn't necessarily start to behave like you or have the same personality, and most times - they actually don't :)
  • 1
    by the way, the term "open source" is a very broad term that only says that the source code is open to be viewed by non-authors of the code.
    It doesn't say anything about licensing for personal/commercial use, modification, distribution or profitting from it, these aspects are handled by the licensing agreement, or lack thereof.
    Take Red Hat for example, they are completely open source, even you can read their source code and modify it for what ever purpose, even commercial, and you won't have pay a cent of royalties to Red Hat. Yet, if you use their products, and need support - reach for your wallet, or good luck figuring out how to trouble shoot your LDAP server on your own, or configure your dns and cyber protection etc.
  • 2
    I ddint read the thread because its way to long but I just want to say that it is not a VM when they add the kernel. Thats the reason why they are adding it.
  • 1
    @LinusTor eh, thanks for correcting me. Not familiar with licensing, but as far as i know, you are required to license your work with the same license if you modify it - at least per GPL.
  • 0
    @LinusTor lately I heard them saying the canceled the chromium based browser and decided to support IE inside Edge, any news on that?
  • 3
    @Stuxnet and that is honestly the best way to go about it. I understand passion, I am passionate about my field and I love it. But fuck me if I am going to stallman screech over an regular Joe's choice of an operating system/programming language/etc

    The only thing that irritates me? the amount of autistic screeching that I see around these parts
  • 3
    @AleCx04 exactly man.

    Like I love learning about a computer, programming, etc. I love having an opinion on what I feel is correct. But I don't give a damn what some asshole across the fucking globe thinks.

    If you catch me nerding out over something, it'll be like me amazed at the attack that GitHub survived around this time last year. (1.3 tbs 😳)

    It's just weird to care to the point that you're arguing with someone who's opinion shouldn't even matter in the first place 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️
  • 1
    @ltlian Docker containers are more light weight than WSL I think
  • 1
    @devTea as far as i know they are absolutely going full force on 'chromium edge' and are really unlikely to ditch it by now...they are committed to it, insider versions are released already for weeks now.
    about IE - it is aimed more for Enterprise users, companies that have their own 'intra-net' sites written long ago that they have no intentions (or ability) to modernize..personally i believe that thsese companies' CTO's are ought to be beheaded, ISIS style as a warning to any moron who is willing to pay the technical debt of still having anything to do with anything that relies on IE
  • 2
    Except it's not a virtual machine. They don't emulate hardware, they translate system calls.
  • 2
    @br34kp01nt yep, WSL/WSL 2 is basically MS's reverse-WINE
  • 1
    @br34kp01nt it is. They describe it as a “lightweight utility VM” with a very accessible interface for windows.

    > WSL 2 uses the latest and greatest in virtualization technology to run its Linux kernel inside of a lightweight utility virtual machine (VM). However, WSL 2 will NOT be a traditional VM experience. When you think of a VM, you probably think of something that is slow to boot up, exists in a very isolated environment, consumes lots of computer resources and requires your time to manage it. WSL 2 does not have these attributes. It will still give the remarkable benefits of WSL 1: High levels of integration between Windows and Linux, extremely fast boot times, small resource footprint, and best of all will require no VM configuration or management.
    >To summarize: while WSL 2 does use a VM, it will be managed and run behind the scenes leaving you with the same user experience as WSL 1.

    Source: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/comm...
  • 1
    @RantSomeWhere it's not a VM in any technical aspect, don't confuse the press release, which is meant for novices with actual technical terms.
    if the so-called 'guest' kernel (linux) is a part of your so called 'host' system (NT) kernel it's not a VM
  • 0
    WSL2 literally runs on hyper-V. According to a couple of tech sites, this will even prevent “normal” virtualization to run properly.

    >Due to the Hyper-V usage of WSL2, WSL2 will not work when VirtualBox or VMware software is active.

    Source: https://phoronix.com/scan.php/...

    Are you saying that they would provide false information in their press release? I smell a PR disaster. Unlikely.
  • 0
    @RantSomeWhere i highly doubt it they would actually publish false or misleading information on purpose, it is more likely that i am wrong.
    the only way to know, is on your windows machine disable virtualization in BIOS/UEFI and see if WSL2 works properly. if it does, something is wrong with the information MS published, if it's not working - I was wrong, and it is an actual VM and what's actually happening is probably the VM runs as a "headless" machine and you can only connect to it through terminal, sort of like using SSH to a remote machine
  • 0
    @LinusTor it looks like we are wrong indeed when looking at their devblogs

  • 1
    I personally don't think they'll go with a full Linux kernel, but I personally believe MS will redo their kernel to a more Unix-like kernel at some point, at least with how much they've been sucking Linux's dick lately.
  • 2
    @infernalempress lol
    MS is trying its damnest to DECREASE investment in windows, so a rework (even minimal) is one of least ways to do that, and one of the best ways to bork everything beyond fixing.
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment