[Info-vax] RMS intro

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/1/2024 11:12 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <umujck$282li$1 at dont-email.me>,
> Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 12/31/2023 11:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:35:34 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> It stands for Linux, but that does not mean that they are trying to move
>>>> the general Windows user to a Linux experience.
>>>
>>> That seems inevitable, though. At some point it is going to become a
>>> mandatory part of any Windows install. I’m not saying it was Microsoft’s
>>> conscious intention when they introduced it, but it will become the path
>>> of least resistance.
>>
>> MS could roll it out to every Windows user tomorrow if they
>> wanted to.
>>
>> But why on earth would they want to do that??
> 
> To pave a way for MSFT to jetison Windows in favor of Linux.
> 
> Maintaining an OS like Windows is expensive and requires a
> steady stream of talent.  There is more talent working on that
> kind of thing outside of Microsoft than inside, just not on
> Windows: most of the work is happening around Linux.  Being able
> to leverage that investment would be a strategic win.

It cost money to maintain Windows, but it also generates revenue.

A lot of revenue. MS sell Windows licenses in the magnitude of
20 B$ per year.

Becoming just another Linux distro vendor would loose
most of that revenue.

Does not make any business sense.

>> For servers the preference is real ESXi/Hyper-V/KVM not WSL.
>>
>> For desktop/laptop the vast majorities of users has no interest
>> in Linux at all. Windows are facing serious challenges, but not
>>from (traditional) Linux. Windows usage is dropping because
>> people are switching to Android/iOS phones/tablets.
>>
>> People are switching from a GUI centric OS (Windows) to
>> GUI only OS (Android & iOS) for casual use. Expecting them
>> to use WSL command line utilities is a non-starter.
> 
> This conflates two things: WSL as a path for moving to Linux
> as the kernel substrate for Microsoft's OS offerings, and using
> WSL as an end user.
> 
> The latter is likely never going to happen outside of developer
> communities.  The former could well happen; WSL gives MSFT a
> low-cost way to dip their toe into the waters and explore
> interoperability between the traditional Windows API and Linux.

If MS wanted to switch to Linux kernel then Win32 API for Linux
would be very interesting.

But WSL does not provide anything for that.

WSL 1 provided the opposite direction - Linux API on Windows kernel.

WSL 2 is just a VM with a very smart/transparent integration.

Arne