Microsoft develops Linux Distro

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

LOL - best spoof I've seen for ages!

 

Jeesh wag you gave me an awfull fright there! Could not understand why MS would want to lower their standards like that...

HEHE, glad I already live in the mountains. Gotta love me.

 

LOL- I would of liked to see the look on freddy's face if this was for real.

 

LOL!

"Do I use it? Do I not? Do I use it? Do I not?"

 

Exactly!

 

LOL. Pretty funny, Prof....

The problem with MS developing a Linux distro would be that by definition it couldn't be Linux......

BTW, love that site. It's been around for quite a while.

Here's MS's newest anti-Linux weapon.

 

The Gate EULA, lol.

 

I think you missed the irony of that one. That's not the EULA. That's the MS GPL. For the irony, read the real GPL.

 

Finally, a linux distro that's easy to use.

 

and will spy on you....

 

Just out of curiosity, what exactly defines a Linux distro as being a Linux distro that automatically means that anything MS does isnt a Linux distro?

I was always under the impression that what made Linux Linux was that it was wrapped around the so called Linux Kernel. Nothing more, nothing less. So in that light, so long as MS wrapped an OS around the kernel and used it instead of their kernel (the NT kernel? is that right?), that would make it Linux.

Or, is the defining quality of linux that all the source code for the OS and its apps are freely available under the GPL? If thats the case, then again, that doesnt automatically mean anything MS touches cant be linux. Just because they havent done this in the past, doesnt mean that they wouldnt necessarily consider doing it. They have money to blow on what might be a fruitless project, so maybe they would be willing to fund a small team in making an open source MS Linux. Yeah it would likely be substandard in comparison to Windows, they would want to maintain their stance on windows being the superior product. Letting their small team be better than windows wouldnt be in their best interests as a company. But its feasible to imagine them doing just this. if nothing more than to allow them to try to get a finger into the Linux market.

 

LOL...

Fergal, on this thread what defines Linux as good, and MS as bad, is my sense of humor.....

Seriously though? There are a lot of differences. The kernel is one, the file system is another. The fact that the desktop gui is, and always has been, been completely separate from the OS, is another. That Linux is a true multi-user OS from the ground up is another. The GPL is another huge difference. It makes it so everything is open to you, the user, and is under your control at all times, not some remote entity. MS would never agree to opening the source code for their products.

I don't believe MS will ever go truly open source even in a small way. They just don't get it. They don't see the advantages. They don't understand the business model. They have a deeply entrenched mindset that the user is not to be trusted. They see the user as something/someone to control, to manipulate for their own purposes. Open source is so antithetical to that I don't think MS will ever adopt that point of view. If they do, then all the upper management, and the vast majority of their of the long time employees will no longer be with them. Their entire culture and business model will have changed.

Will MS pretend to change? Pretend to accept open source? Yeah. They are doing that right now, but even what they like to call their open source licenses aren't. That software can only run on Windows. It's IP can only belong to MS. You can't fork the development in any way a developer might wish. MS retains all basic control. It's not really intellectually free software. It's not really out there to benefit anyone but MS. They can posture all they want, but when you really look at the end result, they are just playing a game of semantics with their MSPL's.

 

I would suggest that it might be you who doesn't quite understand the business model freddy. MS are in business to make money, not to be friendly with everybidy, not to be nice to the world, not for purely humanitarian reasons, simply to make money. They answer to a board of directors, their shareholders etc and the bottom line of those in charge is to make money to keep the BOD and the shareholders happy.

Funny enough this is the same business model as any other business in the world, from mega corporations to the small mom and pop stores so where is the difference. Walmart anyone??