[Info-vax] RMS intro

[Dan Cross]

In article <umvmsf$2cq5r$1 at dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 1/1/2024 4:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:48:53 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2023 11:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:35:34 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> It stands for Linux, but that does not mean that they are trying to
>>>>> move the general Windows user to a Linux experience.
>>>>
>>>> That seems inevitable, though. At some point it is going to become a
>>>> mandatory part of any Windows install. I’m not saying it was
>>>> Microsoft’s conscious intention when they introduced it, but it will
>>>> become the path of least resistance.
>>>
>>> But why on earth would they want to do that??
>> 
>> Because Windows is becoming increasingly complex and expensive for
>> Microsoft to maintain,
>
>That problem is something almost all software has. Code bases grow over
>time.
>
>>                        and the profits from doing so are shrinking. Every
>> Windows user has been noticing how Microsoft is cutting corners on its QA
>> lately, with the deteriorating quality of its updates and patches.
>
>That is a hypothesis but the numbers does not support it.
>
>Windows sale = 20 B$/year.
>
>10000 engineers @ 200 K$/year = 2 B$
>
>It does not seem plausible that maintenance cost of Windows
>is a real problem for MS.

...right now.  But no one is talking about Right Now.  People
are talking about 5 or 10 years down the road.

>(and if Windows development are actual done in India instead of
>Seattle the cost would be way less)
>
>> So it will naturally take decisions (in its typical short-sighted fashion)
>> to reduce that support burden. The obvious, easy one is to rely more and
>> more on that Linux kernel for core stuff.
>
>I can't see that.
>
>If they create another Linux desktop distro, then sale would plummmet.
>There are no money in Linux desktop distros.

You keep talking about "Linux desktop distros", but that's your
failure of vision, not the rest of the world's.

>The compatibility API solution would not reduce maintenance significant.
>
>From:
>
>COM + .NET
>Win32
>NT kernel
>
>to:
>
>COM + .NET
>Win32
>Linux kernel
>
>MS would still need to maintain all the high level stuff where most
>of the work are done.

A significant amount of work is done maintaining drivers, but
inside MSFT and for OEMs.  Linux has become the most important
OS in the world, and writing drivers for Windows is notoriously
tedious.  Taking the burden off of both OEMs and MSFT to provide
drivers for disparate hardware by outsourcing that to vendors
who are already motivated (read: de facto required, if they want
to be relevant) to do so would be a significant win for
everyone: Microsoft wouldn't have to care, and the vendors would
only have to produce one driver.

	- Dan C.