I don’t think i need to explain how it works, should i ?

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Seriously. Yes.

      If Microsoft doesn’t have a secret internal build of Windows that runs on a Linux Kernel, they’re out of their minds.

      The Windows Kernel, as cool as it is, is 100% a cost center. If Microsoft switches (seemlessly) to a Linux kernel, no one would really notice. So at some point they should really switch it.

      • duck1e@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago
        1. they’ll have to opensource the code if they use linux kernel
        2. even with linux being vastly superior, it nice we have 3 major kernels with widely different approaches. it would be sad if either of these 3 dies out
        • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          11 months ago
          1. they’ll have to opensource the code if they use linux kernel

          Only changes they would make to the kernel. There is no obligation to make an OS utilizing the linux kernel open source.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            An oversight by the developers. Had they licensed it under the GNU GPL v3, such a thing would not be possible.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Legal question. If Windows on the linux kernal needs to open source, but that does not apply to other software it runs, right? So could they close source their DE and charge for that, or charge for the windows store?

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That is correct. Microsoft could simply charge for their closed-source desktop environment or their package manager or their software environment in general, but any modifications to the kernel would need to be free and open-source (though they could still charge money for it).

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          even with linux being vastly superior, it nice we have 3 major kernels with widely different approaches. it would be sad if either of these 3 dies out

          Agreed. I do think at least a couple versions of the Windows NT kernel are going to live on forever in emulation, thanks to some pretty awesome games that require it.

      • droans@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        If Microsoft switches (seemlessly) to a Linux kernel, no one would really notice.

        Besides quite literally every piece of software breaking, sure.