Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should The Next Windows Be Built On Linux?

Posted by timothy on from the yoga-position-questions dept.

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?

2 of 763 comments (clear)

  1. Windows Kernels, and Environments by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Informative

    but explorer.exe is not the windowing layer/api, just like Gnome is not X-Window

    Quick and dirty architectural comparisons:

    Linux Kernal -> Windows Kernel
    sh -> cmd.exe
    X server -> GDI.exe
    Window Manager -> Explorer.exe
    CORBA -> (D)COM

    Note these are just quick approximations. My point is that both OS's are reasonably mature and stable (baring spyware, etc.) and there are a lot of areas where both could improve, but porting Windows onto Linux doesn;t make sense for Microsoft today and is a lot more work than Cringly seems to think.

    But then this guy has never seemed to know what he is talking about

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  2. Re:And compromise compatibility with drivers, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Windows 3.1 you could run DOS-atop-Windows-atop-DOS... but if you ever tried to run "Win" in that environment, you would get a message that indicated that Windows-atop-DOS-atop-Windows-atop-DOS just wan't going to happen, you're not at a "real" DOS prompt. You didn't have a full-featured version of DOS there, just the interface level.

    Actually, it was the "full-featured version of DOS" running in that DOS prompt under Win3.1 and Win9X.

    The X86 architecture has 2 main modes of operation: real mode (compatibility with 8086/186 processors -- all PCs to this day boot in this mode) and protected mode.

    Under protected mode, it was possible to create something called a Virtual 8086-mode task. This allowed for real mode simulation within a protected mode environment, thus allowing real mode programs to work.

    Each V86 session can, for most practical purposes, be made to think it is the only thing running (with no knowledge that it is being virtualized and having various instructions, operations, and interrupts intercepted by the protected mode operating system.)

    Getting into protected mode from V86 mode is not possible, hence why Windows wouldn't run in a DOS box. It is also possible for real mode programs running in V86 mode to detect V86 mode by checking the appropriate processor status flag (I'm not sure if the OS can intercept this.)

    DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) is what eventually allowed 32-bit DOS programs to run in true real mode or in DOS boxes. In DOS boxes, Windows would be the DPMI server; but in real mode, you'd need an external program to get you into protected mode first -- CWSDPMI, for example.