Funny. We always fight the last war. The VMWare and other products make this approach irrelevant. Why would anybody want to run x86 Unix/Linux code under a fake OS "framework," when they can just boot it in a VM?
If what they're saying is that I can download & run x86 Linux-compiled binaries that will interoperate with Windows at the X11 and OS Kernel level, then yee-hah, more power to them, but they're expending an awful lot of effort for virtually zero payback. Mabye it's a stop-loss strategy: prevent further erosion of the Windows desktop.
If anything, this goes to show (me) that MS still doesn't "get" "open." The idea that's driving Linux to the desktop isn't the superiority of its "tools." Tools in both environments are competitive. It's the idea that you don't have to pay a licensing tax to use the software.
Putting an "honest" UNIX personality under-the-covers of Vista makes it look an AWFUL LOT MORE like OS/X, rather than a Linux "killer." Yee-hah. A war on two fronts!
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. We always fight the last war. The VMWare and other products make this approach irrelevant. Why would anybody want to run x86 Unix/Linux code under a fake OS "framework," when they can just boot it in a VM? If what they're saying is that I can download & run x86 Linux-compiled binaries that will interoperate with Windows at the X11 and OS Kernel level, then yee-hah, more power to them, but they're expending an awful lot of effort for virtually zero payback. Mabye it's a stop-loss strategy: prevent further erosion of the Windows desktop. If anything, this goes to show (me) that MS still doesn't "get" "open." The idea that's driving Linux to the desktop isn't the superiority of its "tools." Tools in both environments are competitive. It's the idea that you don't have to pay a licensing tax to use the software. Putting an "honest" UNIX personality under-the-covers of Vista makes it look an AWFUL LOT MORE like OS/X, rather than a Linux "killer." Yee-hah. A war on two fronts!