Slashdot Mirror
Should The Next Windows Be Built On Linux?
scrm writes "The next version of Windows should be built on top of Linux, according to this article by Robert Cringely of PBS." If Microsoft wanted to, they could be the world's largest vendor of Free software .. couldn't they?
I was hoping that a respected institution such as PBS would be able to come up with a more competent technology columnist than Robert X. Cringley, but unfortunately, this has not been the case. There's no need to even read the article - the main proposal is so ludicrous and demonstrative of a fundamental ignorance of software as to be completely lacking credibility.
I'm surprised that even Slashdot deigned to post this; it is such utter drivel as to rival and perhaps even surpass the ineptitude of the editors here who, for all their spelling errors and unabashed sensationalism, at least tend to get their technical facts right the first time.
--sdem
This pressumes that the Linux kernel is in anyway superior to the WinNT kernel, which it isn't.
There are many reasons to be enthusiastic about Linux and the accomplishment of a group of volunteers assembling a Unix clone is remarkable.
However in our enthusiasm for OSS we should not lose sight that linux is a reimplementation of a 30 year old operating system (although admittedly a very good one, that has seem some updates along the way).
In other words, Linux is the open source implementation of a VW bug. The state of the art is way ahead of this (both in car and OS design).
Mach, the NT kernel, BeOS, AtheOS are examples of where an OS can be. The Apple UI shows what a decent toolkit and window manager ought to look like.
There is still much work to be done before linux is a state-of-the-art OS worth replacing the NT kernel.
Well, slashdot wasn't an apple zealot orgy when first started using the site (like 99 or 98). The apple crap only started up about a year so ago.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Now back to Microsoft putting Windows on top of Linux. Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve. As Mike Class points out, by not having to develop its own OS, Microsoft could also save money. They wouldn't need however many people are presently devoted to maintaining the underlying OS that isn't supposed to be there. And what actual data do you have to prove this? Our win200 advanced server smokes our Caldera server both running on the same hardware config, but then again Im comparing SQL server on win 2000 VS MySQL on Linux. Oh..thats right...I'm sorry Linux pundits..I guess this isnt a fair comparison because SQL server is optimized on windows.....Please.
windows XP (which is really NT with lipstick)
That's a good analogy, but it'd be a bit more accurate to say "whore makeup".
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.