How Would Microsoft Enter the Linux Market?

Post Reply New Topic

If, for some strange reason, Microsoft started dealing with Linux, what do you thing they would do? Would the come up with their own distro, what would they call it? Would they just port their apps to Linux?

Personally I would prefer that Microsoft would keep away from Linux. They won't be welcomed by current Linux users (I don't think so at least). If Microsoft created some applications for Linux, that would be a different story but I don't welcome the idea of a Microsoft GNU/Linux.

This is what they would do:
They'd release a buggy and slow distro, but with a cheesy user interface. It wouldn't have any of the things we know from linux, like a console or the ability to change the window manager or re-compile the kernel, but it would have "Rich media integration" or whatever crap. Then they'd put their best marketing geniuses on the job of getting people to use it. And people would use it, even though it has disadvantages. Then, after some when they have 98% of the linux market shares, they'd discontinue the project and offer an upgrade path to the new version Windows which incidentally is released just in time for the discontinuation.

They've already stuck their foot in the water with their recent deal with Novell (who own the SuSE Linux distribution).
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54088.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/art ... c=hm_topic

Which is really too bad, in my opinion. 9 years ago, leaked documents showed that Microsoft considered Linux to be the major threat to their monopoly status, and was making plans to eliminate it as a problem, see: http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html

This was followed by 7 or 8 years of their quietly funding "independent research" which tried to slam Linux from every possible angle -- that it was slower, hard to use, insecure, that using it could get you sued, that it was bad in just about every possible way. http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween6.html

I started using SuSE Linux at work three or four years ago, and switched to it at home not long after, and have been quite happy with it. I can't view Microsoft's involvement with them to be a good thing, and don't like the feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Because I doubt that this is the end of their involvement. Vista isn't exactly flying off the shelves, so the timing is suspicious to begin with. What comes next?

The whole situation creeps me out, so I've already switched one of my 3 domestic systems over to another, non-commercial Linux, and will do so with the others if things get any weirder.

Anyway, there's my answer -- that's what Microsoft has done so far. What they do next, I can't tell you. They could buy out Novell, but I think it's not in their interest to -- Novell would have lost money last quarter, and it was only a lump sum payment by Microsoft that made them profitable, so they seem to be on the road to becoming a Microsoft puppet, if they aren't already. Puppet status is probably quite sufficient for their purposes. Since 98% of Linux is not written by companies like Novell, but rather by unpaid volunteers, Microsoft may be trying to alienate the people who make Linux, who may not enjoy doing all that work, only to see it line the pockets of Novell. Or perhaps Microsoft is hoping to give some pricey, commercial version of Linux dominance over the market, so that they no longer have to compete with a free product, something which has always given them nightmares.

Time will tell.

Microsoft moving into the Linux market will only upset Linux users, as proven by the Novell deal.

Microsoft will never be accepted by Linux users if they don't go open source.

The previous statements are released under the GPL.

Last edited by Jameson on 19 Mar 2007, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deleted

Last edited by Jameson on 19 Mar 2007, 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

They paid Corel to get out of the linux bussiness. I had Corel Debian based Linux on this same computer when I bought it I guess 5-6 years ago.

They paid SCO to sue Linux users.

Corel Linux is the basis for Xandros.

if there's ever a need they could do like apple which uses the linux kernel and then build everything on top of it

Last I heard, Apple doesn't use a Linux kernel (or BSD), they use Mach. Unix-like, but different and closed-source.

Last edited by Jameson on 19 Mar 2007, 12:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think Apple used BSD and I would assume Microsoft would use a unix that would permit them to not be required to release the code. The BSD licence does not require you to release source code for the binaries you distribute.

Apple uses XNU which is a Mach-BSD hybrid which is used in Darwin. OSX is built on top of Darwin. Most importantly, Darwin is open source, that source can be downloaded here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Ah, I didn't know they re-opened the source. I know they closed it a couple years ago.

I think it's been open all along.

Darwin is open, but the intel kernel (XNU) was closed source (at least at some point) due to piracy.

http://www.macrumors.com/2006/05/17/int ... ed-source/

But if they turn to the dark side the BSD licence permits them to close source their distribution.