Windows based on Unix?
Posted 13 July 2004 - 08:38 PM
Apple has used a Unix core for its new MacOS X operating system and as far as I know, Apple has never been this popular. Undoubtedly, MacOS X is the the best OS that Apple has made (and to tell you the truth, if the rest of the world didn't use .exe files, then I would certainly have invested in an Apple PowerBook, instead of my Dell Inspiron 9100). Might I also add that Mac OS X has a very cool GUI.
Linux is secure and free, and certainly doesn't have the \r\n problem, but as compared to Windows, it is quite difficult to learn about. Nevertheless, Linux/Unix is constantly taking over (if not already took over) more and more servers because of its portablity, security, "customizeability", and higher percentage of open-source/freeware programs.
My suggestion is, why would Microsoft not use the already stable Unix/Linux core, modify it to meet its needs (it is open-source), in response to Apple's MacOS X (much like it is boosting Hotmail storage in response to Google's GMail), and develop an operating system with all the benefits of Unix/Linux, and at the same time - the ease of use of Windows.
EDIT: and might I suggest that they use a derivative of my avatar for the logo of their new OS?
Posted 14 July 2004 - 08:57 AM
Also, one of the reasons Windows is so strong in the marketplace is that so many companies write programs for Windows. If suddenly the next Microsoft OS based on Linux, a lot of drivers and programs would have to be (re-)written to match the availability that Windows currently has. The entire Microsoft catalog alone would have to be ported to a Linux-based OS, which is a task so complex I can't even comprehend. Similarly, I know that this is my main reason to not use Linux: I can't find drivers for my hardware and I can't use many of the programs I'm so used to.
I'm not sure dumping the current code in exchange for Linux/Unix would be the best idea then...
Posted 14 July 2004 - 10:13 AM
Posted 14 July 2004 - 10:14 AM
Mac OS X is popular, but not mainly because of it's BSD base. Sure, the BSD component is a selling point, but Aqua, the GUI, sells more copies that another UNIX-like Distro. Besides, Linux has been available for the Macintosh for a longtime already. To the average Macintosh user, Unix, Linux, and the like make no difference. And for the record, Aqua is still closed source.
Linux has proven stability, but to it's credit, so does NT. The most compelling reason that companies have to move to Linux is licensing costs and security response time; Most companies don't care that you can slim Linux down to fit a floppy disk and use it for routing on a P90, but MS only updates their products once a month. And that's because Sysadmins requested it!
The closest thing MS will consider is what they've already done - Give Services for Unix away. They might add a compatibility layer simular to the OS2 and POSIX features, but the GPL might hamper this.
Just my three cents.
Posted 14 July 2004 - 11:10 AM
Just a thought.
EDIT: they could still keep it closed-source, and be able to sell it with distributions that already cost money, like RedHat or SuSE. Microsoft could sell these Linux companies rights to ditribute their GUI in their distribution for a couple of million dollars, while the companies would raise (or lower ) prices accordingly.
Posted 16 July 2004 - 02:00 PM
If you go by this, then Office 2003 Pro is $900!!! I don't think that I like that. I won't even go to actual Windows OS costs.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 12:36 PM
zprog, on Jul 14 2004, 08:08 AM, said:
windows has a stable core as well. And if you know enough on Linux as to keep it secure, and invest the same time to learn about WinNT5 (w2k and above) you'd keep it just as secure - with the added bonus that windows is easy to use for everyone, and also has access to a vast 3rd party library of apps.
That linux is open-source does not matter here (for the task at hand).
About the only difference between win/lin would be that linux is cheaper to support/implement (despite all of MS-sponsored TCO studies). The fact remains that linux is as good/bad as windows. So why change a core which has taken 20 years to perfect?
Posted 18 July 2004 - 05:31 PM
What i believe (or companies believe) is that they think:
-Who is the big player on the market?
-Who delivers the most (perhaps best) support?
-And all that under warranties from 1 company?
I discussed it once before with a big man from the banking business.
(father in law )
And that is all he say'd..... that's what it is really about! That's why company's spend millions at microsoft: reliabilty from one company, not from a community!
Home users are not the main thingy here to discuss ,we all know how many of you/us have illegal copies, so count them out, incl. Office copies.
Count the amount of money they bring in for Microsoft now again..
Yeah, they do have unix based mainframes, but that's more about "we allready have it so lets keep using it".
I feel it isn't so bad with the reliability and stability from Windows based systems anymore!
So why should they leave the road they turned in??
Allright, Office suite's are bad and to expensive (except for the student discount)
The freeware and cheaper apps perform even better!
(lets all try the 30+ page scription with images and some default input for school in Office from microsoft... it crashes)
But overall they don't deliver a bad OS anymore. So lets go in the mind of company, "why base it on open source, when we make good progress in delivering that what people CAN work with?" "When it works stable right now?"
My gues would be: ure an id*** when do such things with a your company, when u have so MANY employees!
EDIT: I doubt the cost for sysadmins when they have to maintain linux/unix or a Microsoft based system...
Tell me: Will Linux/Unix be cheaper to maintain at this moment?
Posted 18 July 2004 - 07:14 PM
They could sell it of course, but they won't because it would only hurt them. Trying to support Windows is a big enough task, but throw in Linux and having to support all the grannies using it would be a nightmare. Besides they want Windows to dominate, and I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they want Linux dead. Besides it wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion for them to sell Linux. I don't really think they need to; they have years of work in Windows, and NT is a very good product. My opinions of course, but I think we'll meet up with Vulcans before Microsoft starts selling Linux.