[Info-vax] RMS intro

[Dan Cross]

In article <umv3ll$2adef$1 at dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 1/1/2024 11:52 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> [snip]
>> ...right now.
>> 
>> The windows market share is, as you yourself mentioned earlier
>> in this thread, continuing to shrink.
>> 
>> People at Microsoft aren't stupid.  They can see the long-term
>> direction themselves.
>
>Windows desktop market share is not shrinking much. The
>problem for MS is that the desktop market itself is shrinking - a
>lot of casual users are switching to phones and tablets. Most
>still have a PC, but because it is not used so much then they
>are kept way longer than they used to. So PC sales is dropping
>and Windows sales is dropping.
>
>If MS want to continue the big presence in the consumer segment,
>then they need to address it. Somehow they need to get into
>the phone and tablet market. This is why the MS CEO recently
>said that he regretted killing Windows Phone.
>
>Creating a Linux desktop distro is not going to help with this
>problem, because it is not what the customers are looking for.

You seem to conflate, "using the Linux kernel" with "creating
a Linux desktop distro."

>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> ...and integration at the file level.
>> 
>>> WSL 2 is just a VM with a very smart/transparent integration.
>> 
>> As I said, it's a way for them to dip their toe in the water and
>> explore compatibility.  It's obviously not the end state.
>
>"dip their toe in the water" and "explore compatibility" ????
>
>It does not do anything for running Windows applications on a Linux
>system.

Bluntly, you're long on opinion, but based on this and many
other answers in this newsgroup and others, I really don't think
you have a good handle on how any of the underlying technologies
actually work.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to
dismiss how a kernel compatibility layer that implements a
kernel ABI (e.g., WSL1) could be leveraged to gain insight into
how two kernel interfaces could be made to work simultaneously,
or how virtualization across a kernel boundary with shared
services (e.g., WSL2) could be similarly leveraged.

	- Dan C.