Ex-MSFT Employee: Microsoft Should Run Linux

This is the biggest reverse paradigm ever.

An ex-employee has negative things to say about his former company and how they operate? I'd take his comments with a grain of salt or two.

So this was some guy who was hired by Microsoft to code a few lines in its "Games Explorer" division (consisting of him and Milton sans stapler); with his vast knowledge of the Windows code base and his deep connection with the inner workings of the company he must be a serious insight into what we should really be thinking.

Wait, I'm just crazy.

Seriously though, I like how when things like this are posted it never shows the position of the person saying these things and how long they actually worked with the company... He could've been the freaking janitor for all we know who sat up coding for Linux's version of Chrome on his days off who never even used a product for the company he was working for. Ugh.

Imagine? They probably have 1 million versions of Linux under continuous testing and development.

Right. We haven't been hearing that for years. I have a little secret for you Mr. Curtis. Windows is already dominating the market, and in spite of predictions over the last 15 years, Linux is still less than 1%. Hardly close to market domination.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Linux with a much bigger market share, but this guy is an idiot just looking for 15 minutes of fame.

ex Microsoft employee that loves linux big surprise. There hasn't been a movie to linux because many distributions aren't friendly enough for people that can barely use a mac (i'm not counting that a a linux) or windows while being walked-though by their children.

Although i can't see why business can't transition into a linux base, just need one where you can lock out all users but admins, as job training for even basic things is still common when it comes to computers.

oh please give me break, everyone said Linux will take over MS 10 years ago, what happen ? Linux is good free for the nerd/technical people, not for average Joe. MS had come a long way from MS-DOS to current Windows 7. Last 15 years working as Unix administrator/Engineer. I had try Linux so many time and it fail me each time, just so many simple application like iTune, or game simply don't run under Linux, and the WINE is joke. One OS can't fit all the need for the people. each OS can do different thing depend on the person need.

Microsoft is already running Linux actually.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/ [...] oint_.html

"Keith Curtis believes that not even the well-received Windows 7 will stop Linux from market domination."

how can one make this kind of a statement about an o/s that is not user friendly at all. sure linux is powerful and i have used it but you don't see me running it on my computers because it is all command line based and can be very troublesome to install drivers and software in. I like linux fine but as far as mainstream? that is quite a bit far fetched, this ex microsoft employee has a very vivid imagination.

Yeah, I'll take my grains of salt on this one. The guy doesn't seem to know much about what he's talking about. Can anyone honestly imagine Microsoft dropping all the work they have done and trying to port everything over to linux AND working on compatibility for all past products that work on Windows?

And as a lot above me have already said, linux has been predicted to take over for ages and is still less than 1% of the market.

He might mean in the server world, where linux has a much more noticeable presence

Apart from the fact that Linux is not going to be gaining market share, why would MSFT make a linux? First of all, Windows is ridiculously profitable for MSFT, so why ditch it? Second, wouldn't they have to make the linux free/open source for it to be a linux? If not, what's the point? If so, why would MSFT make software w/ it's enormous force and give it out for free?
Right. It wouldn't.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that got him laid off.

Disgruntled ex employee, move along, nothing to see here. I'm disappointed with this article Marcus.

Anyone that thinks Unix, any version, will ever make it big is a complete idiot. It's been around since the 1960s, and people have been saying since the 70s how it will eventually take over the world.

It hasn't, and it never will. Unix sucks. It's a pain in the backside. I've made a lot of money porting applications from Unix to Windows NT, and that's how it should be.

I'm not a big Microsoft fan, as I still think OS/2 was better, but NT is way better than any Unix variety.

Another thing is, after using shareware, I've become more convinced it's worth what you pay for it. Apache, MySQL, phpBB are horrible compared to real products. The documentation is horrendous, the support dismal, and they are just not as well finished as real products. If you're poor, especially from countries that don't have money, it's worth it. But, for most people here, it's not worth all the problems.

Also, I haven't seen Linux gaining market share, even against Vista, which sucked. Against Windows 7, it's going to be harder. If someone were to come up with something new, maybe they'd have a chance. But, sadly, these idiots just keep coming up with new versions of the failed Unix operating system. If it's failed for 40 years to gain widespread market acceptance, why think it will now that NT is more advanced than ever?

could be. business I work at has enough issues already with linux based nas servers though lol. nothing's going to ever be perfect. linux zealots herald their o/s as being perfect but it is not.

I'm a programmer. MS has the best software development tools in the industry.

That's why Windows is so popular. Because the bulk of programmers WANT to use MS's software development tools and they work best when developing applications for Windows. So the best software is on Windows.

That's why Windows is popular. It's cheaper and faster to develop applications in Windows. The userbase being huge helps a lot too though. But that's what will break the tie.

If MS went to Linux, it would be great for everyone because they would take their development team for MSDN to linux which would drastically improve the overall quality of software development tools in Linux (and therefore over time the software). It would be good for everyone except MS.

Pretty much



Linux runs most of the world's most powerful servers and supercomputers. Windows runs home web servers and personal computers only. That 1% figure is only for home desktops. Check the TOP500, where Windows runs 1% and Linux runs 77.4%.



That's not true. Linux is not as Windows-user-friendly, but Windows is not Linux-user-friendly either. They do things differently, but for the person who just wants to surf the web and check emails, both are pretty much the same level of difficulty to use. The difficulty comes from switching between them, but it's not an inherent flaw with either OS.



Try a distribution from later than 2006 and I'm pretty sure you'll find that the CLI is rarely used for common tasks. For more advanced tasks, the GUI can be used, but the CLI is typically more efficient.

Oh, and before someone calls me a Linux fanboy, I currently run Windows 7 and no Linux distros, as I am a gamer more than anything else (and too lazy to learn a different OS).

Visual Studio is some really powerful software, of that there's no doubt. I wouldn't want to use any other IDE if I didn't have to. It's just a whopping big installation.

It's the little things that keep people from moving to Linux, like being tied to Internet Explorer or their iPod (no itunes for Linux after all). People also like to run their old badly written programs, which is why Win7 has an XP compatibility mode (ie built in virtual machine). Of course for me it's Games, and that darn CS3. Just too many little things, like pasting between flash and some other CS3 app under wine, that keep me on Windows a majority of the time for working purposes.

Linux does have its advantages, especially in the server arena. However, in terms of the home PC market, it's never going to happen. Most want simplicity, which is Windows.

If Windows is so simple, why is there such a big 3rd-party tech support market for home PCs?

Linux != UNIX
UNIX > (Windows+Linux)

It's huge because it can do so much. Most of what it can do, 90% of people will never see. It has VMWare interfacing. I didn't even know that until a few weeks ago.

But Visual Studio isn't the only thing the MSDN people make. It's just the most well known. They also produce the development packages that go out with the Xbox 360 which is by far the most popular console to develop for by third parties. It has less to do with architecture and such as it does with the development tools MS has made.

Then there are the Expression Studio program sets. Those are quite a bit better than the garbage Adobe/Macromedia has been producing for Flash. Flash developer = awful. Flex Developer = Worse.

I could go on but pretty much whatever area MS gets interested in, the MSDN folks have to write the tools for them to use to develop the software and they haven't let people down yet.

It's also the only one I use, so I couldn't talk about much else. I did notice the VMware interface a long time ago, but I have no need for it, and sometimes ran it instead of compiling the program by accident.

Dude, do you go outside ever? That will answer that. People are stupid. The average user over 40 can barely manage their email let alone do anything else.

If Windows weren't so easy, the people who need a primer to copy and paste a file would be computerless.

This just in! A former BMW employee says that He's been driving a Mercedes for 4 years and says it superior in every way. Employee was stated as saying that Mercedes will take over the market if BMW doesn't use Mercedes frames and engines...blah blah blah.

It's not just ex-employees, but also current employees that agree with him... When you know someone you'll find out... There is nothing new with this statement. Their source code has been a mess, they've been trying to clean it up since Vista, which was a bad attempt and Win 7 which is a bit better but there is still a sh*t load of stuff to be done...

There are many Linux distros that are much more user friendly than Windows. I'm curious when the last time you used it was, and what distro/desktop environemnt you used.

The "Linux is all commandline" argument is also a very, very outdated and invalid as the same can be said about Windows (i.e. Windows Server). If you're using a desktop Linux distro, then just like a desktop install of Windows, you'll probably never have to touch the command line.

As for drivers/software, it's typically piss easy to install. 99% of the time the drivers are built into the kernel, so you don't have to install anything. It just works. Most distros also come with massive software repositories where you can easily install what you want via a gui installer. The only time it becomes "troublesome" is when you're trying to get Windows software running. But in that regard, Linux is a step up from Windows, as Windows can't run Linux binaries at all, but Linux can run Windows binaries via WINE.

Lastly, saying "I've used Linux and it's so user unfriendly" is also a bogus argument as Linux = the kernel. Last I checked the windows kernel isn't exactly user friendly either. Well, I take that back. They probably are user friendly, but the "users" in this case are the developers building applications that interact with the kernel, and NOT end users like yourself or I. Instead, refer to the distribution itself (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Android, etc). At least then there's a comparison.

http://www.openlina.com/

Linux applications can run in Windows.

hey curtis go ahead: eat, lunch and dine with your linux, not me, i enjoy very much windows base system. for a year got into osx then went back to m/s. windows is much more exciting because most of the devices you plug to your pc works well plain and simple.