Ex-MSFT Employee: Microsoft Should Run Linux
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (118) |
- Share
Could you imagine a Microsoft Linux?
Should Microsoft just give up the whole Windows business and switch over to a Linux codebase? A former Microsoft Research employee thinks so.
Keith Curtis believes that not even the well-received Windows 7 will stop Linux from market domination. And in keeping with the "if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em" attitude, Curtis thinks that Microsoft and its customers would be better off if the company ditched Windows and made its own version of Linux.
Microsoft Linux? Strange indeed.
"I think we could all be running Microsoft Linux. I sent an e-mail to Steve Ballmer about this and he said he wasn't interested," he quipped in a NetworkWorld story. "Microsoft could very easily dominate the Linux market if they wanted to. I don't think they should release all their source code ... nobody would use it."
"I just look at their code bases and the world doesn't need any of their code bases," Curtis added. "From the day I started using Linux, I no longer used one line of Microsoft code -- it's been four years now."
Stranger things have happened in the world of the computing industry, but Microsoft abandoning Windows seems like an impossibility. Curtis points out that it wouldn't be a costly venture for Microsoft to dabble in, as Ubuntu was started with about $10 million – just pocket change for Microsoft.
Source : Tom's Hardware US
- Wine for gaming [Linux/Free BSD]
- Counsel on parts for new gamer PC? [Homebuilt Systems]
- Gaming rig for around $1000 CAN [Homebuilt Systems]
- Thoughts on Windows 7 (pre) beta [Windows 7]
- [General Motherboard] Dell Dimension 4550 Fastest cpu? [Motherboards & Memory]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- THGC Needs You -Team 40051
- Buying a PC for 8 years old
- Newegg has the Phenom!!!! let it begin
- Virtual PC Platform?
- Let's really use my quadcore! Need your help !!
- 32 bit OS 4gigs of ram
- X86 x64 32bit 64bit 3GB memory 4GB memory OH MY
- RAM For Asus Maximus Formula
- A Continuing Work in Progress: The State of Linux 2006
- New builder need help
- What would be an ideal system for replacing school computers
- help me decide an OS for old laptop
- Picking os for my new pc/htpc/server
- Suggestions for Home Hyper-V Server
Related articles
-
Installing Guest Additions With Windows XP updated and booted, it's time to install some VirtualBox optimizations. Unbind the mouse from the VM by pressing the right Ctrl key. Click on Devices in the menubar of XP's VM window, then click Install Guest Additions. The Sun VirtualBox Guest Additions setup screen should open. Rebind the mouse to the VM by left-clicking anywhere on the Windows desktop. Click Next, I Agree, and then Next again. Check the box next to Direct3D Support (Experimental) if you plan on utilizing DirectX 3D graphics. Click Install to begin copying the Guest Additions files to your VM. When Guest Additions is done installing, click Finish to reboot. After Windows has rebooted and you're back to a workable desktop, a VirtualBox icon will be in the notification area of the taskbar. If you had previously resized the desktop's resolution, it may have reverted back. Also notice that your mouse is now able to move between the VM and host OS without clicking or using the Ctrl key. This is called Mouse Integration and is part of Guest Additions. It can be turned on and off from Machine in the menubar, or by pressing right-Ctrl+I. Sharing Files Remember the shared folder we designated when we tweaked XP's VM settings? You're going to need it now. Navigate to the shared folder in your Linux file manager (mine was the Public folder in my Home directory, /home/adam/Public). This is where you'll put files from Linux (the host OS) that you want to share with Windows XP (the guest OS). This is also where you go to receive files from XP to Linux. To make files from Windows XP available to the Linux host, or to receive files from Linux in XP, you need to first boot up the XP VM. In this step, the sequence must be followed to the letter. This is very easy to get wrong, and a misstep will result in you starting over. Follow the mouse pointer in the screenshot below for easy reference. From the Start Menu, open My Computer, then click My Network Places in the Other Places sidebar. Next, click View workgroup computers in the Network Tasks sidebar. Now, click on Microsoft Windows Network in the Other Places sidebar. Click on Entire Network again, in the Other Places sidebar. Now, there should be an entry for VirtualBox Shared Folders in the window. Double-click it. Your shared folder should be there, listed as \\VBOXSVR\"folder name.” For example, mine is \\VBOXSVR\Public. Since it's such a hassle to go through the XP file manager's sidebar to get here, it's a good idea to put the shared folder in your Favorites. Just click Favorites/Add to Favorites when you're in VirtualBox Shared Folders. From now on, you can get to the VirtualBox Shared Folders directory from Favorites in Windows Explorer. Now you'll be able to easily transfer files between the Linux host OS and the XP guest OS.
-
When you get back to the Ubuntu desktop you can now open VirtualBox via Applications/SystemTools/SunVirtualBox. Since we are using the free version of Sun VirtualBox, and not the free and open-source version, we need to agree to the license agreement. To do this, scroll all the way down and then click I Agree. Next, the VirtualBox Registration Dialog window should open. If you already have a Sun Online account, enter your email and password and click Register. If not, you can enter your information and click Register. Alternatively, you can also just click Cancel to continue. Once VirtualBox opens, click on the New button in the navigation bar. This opens the Create New Virtual Machine wizard. Click Next. In the Name field, enter a name for your new virtual machine. If you plan on having several VMs, name each VM descriptively to avoid confusion (such as “Windows XP SP3 32-bit”). You could also name the VM for its intended purpose, such as “Gaming,” “MS Office,” or “Compatibility Testing.” Under OS Type, you can choose the operating system and version. Since VirtualBox defaults to Microsoft Windows in the Operating System field and Windows XP in the Version field, we can leave it alone and click Next. Now we must decide how much system memory we want to allocate to the virtual machine. In this respect, the VM is much like a real system; the more memory, the better. You can allocate up to half of your system's RAM to the VM. My test system has 4GB, so I'm going to give 1GB to the Windows XP VM. This will leave the host OS (Ubuntu) with 3GB when XP is running. After you have decided how much RAM to give to your VM, click Next. Since this is the first time you're running VirtualBox, there won't be any virtual hard disks to chose from. Therefore, we must select Create new hard disk, and then click Next. This opens the Create New Virtual Disk wizard. Click Next again. On this screen, we are presented with the choice between Dynamically expanding storage and Fixed-size storage. The difference is that Dynamically expanding storage will only take up the amount of space used by data in the VM. Fixed-size storage immediately takes up the entire size of the virtual disk. With either option, you will need to specify the size of the virtual disk after clicking Next. The Location field on this page should already be indicating the name that you gave the VM earlier. Using either the text box or the slider, you can specify the size that you want your virtual hard disk to be. Remember, if you chose Fixed-size storage, your real hard disk will lose whatever amount you decide here. If you chose Dynamically expanding storage, this is the maximum amount of space your virtual hard disk will be allowed to consume. I'm happy with the default size of 10.00GB, but you can specify any size that works for you. Click Next. The Summary Screen will display the type and size of your virtual hard disk as well as it's location on your real hard drive. Verify that the options are correct, and perhaps make note of the virtual disk's location. This is a good idea in case you want to backup, or even take your virtual hard disks with you. When satisfied, click Finish. The more space you've given to Fixed-size storage, the longer this will take. After your virtual hard disk is created, that wizard will close and another summary screen will display the Name, OS Type, Base Memory, and Boot Hard Disk that you selected for your new virtual machine. Verify the information and then click Finish.
-
How To: Windows XP Mode In...Ubuntu Linux?
With Windows 7 due out later this month, many of you are no doubt counting the days until release. I've played with both the beta and RC of Microsoft's latest OS, and quite honestly, I liked what I saw. If this had come out in 2006 when 'Longhorn' was promised, I have no doubt that I would not have switched to Linux (at least not yet). However, that's not how events played out. What really happened was 'Longhorn' became Vista, and it didn't make it out the door until 2007. It arrived late, buggy, irritating (UAC), overpriced, underwhelming, confusing (licensing), and in some cases, incompatible. Now, almost three years later, and almost five since Longhorn's initially-planned release, Microsoft is releasing the OS they should have launched several years ago. Unfortunately, Windows 7 is also overpriced (slightly less so than Vista), and even more confusing. But first, let's go over what Microsoft did right. Windows 7 is going to launch when the company said it will launch. Because of a long beta and RC testing phase, 7 is not going to be as buggy as Vista was when it debuted. Microsoft has taken the UAC down a notch. It has also come down on the price a little. The highest edition of 7 (Ultimate) is fifty percent more expensive than the highest edition of XP (Pro). This is opposed to 100% more expensive (Vista Ultimate versus XP Pro). But fair enough, the price did drop somewhat. Underwhelming, 7 is not. In terms of its user interface, Vista was pretty much XP with a reorganized Start Menu and a black taskbar. Flip 3D was basically nothing more than a choppy gimmick (though the thumbnail previews of windows within the taskbar are pretty sweet; Windows 7 kept them, and I use them in Linux). Windows 7 actually succeeds in terms of a being a unified vision that pays tribute to the brand. Everything is made of glass in 7. Vista began this trend with the transparent glass window borders and the overlaid faux-reflection texture. But 7 really takes the use of transparent glass and reflections to the extreme. The window borders, menus, some applications, and even the taskbar and start menu are all made of glass. New tricks include being able to make all windows transparent to see the desktop. As a total package, Windows 7 has what I consider to be the first true Windows theme. Finally, we're left with how Microsoft figured out how to solve its backward-compatibility issues. With the introduction of XP Mode (XPM), Windows 7 will not fall victim to the nightmare of incompatibilities suffered by early-adopters of Vista. XPM is a fully-licensed copy of Windows XP Service Pack 3 running in a VirtualPC Virtual Machine (VM). In many cases XPM is the clincher that holdouts needed in order to finally upgrade. Unfortunately, the confusion created by the Windows 7 licensing scheme has all but ruined their compatibility fix. XPM is only included in Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate. If you want a full retail boxed copy of Windows 7 with XPM, you're going to have to fork over $300 for Professional, or $320 for Ultimate. If you already own a copy of Windows XP or Vista, you can pay $200 for the upgrade to Professional, or $220 for Ultimate. Let that sink in for a minute. That's right, Windows 7 Home Premium (and below) does not have XPM. Most systems sold by retailers come with a version of Windows completely lacking XPM. Wait, it gets better. Thanks to Microsoft's ingenious Windows Anytime Upgrade, consumers who bought a new PC with Windows 7 Home Premium can upgrade to Professional for $90 or Ultimate for $140. If you were sold Home Basic or Starter edition, you'll have to first upgrade to Home Premium for $80. Like I said, 'ingenious.' One way or another, you are probably going to have to pay Microsoft some amount of money if you want XPM... ...or not. If you're open to using Linux , you too can have a fast and secure next-gen OS with full XP compatibility, all for free!
Best offers
|
Windows 7 Professional (Full Product) | $299.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
Office 2007 Home and Student (Full... | $119.95 Newegg.com More info |
|
Windows 7 Home Premium (Upgrade) | $119.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
Windows 7 Ultimate (Full Product) | $319.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
Norton Internet Security 2010 - 3 Users | $69.99 Dell Small Business More info |
Troubleshooting Windows 7 With Microsoft's Built-In Tools
Windows 7 is more stable and responsive than Vista, but no operating system is perfect (the same goes for the drivers and apps running on it). We show you a suite of tools built into Microsoft’s shiny new OS to help you troubleshoot your Windows 7 issues. Read More
-
Quick Look: Notebook Performance With Windows XP, Vista, And 7
Windows 7 is here, and we've already established that it tastes great, is less filling, and performs well. But do you want it on your notebook? We compared the performance and battery life of Windows XP, Vista, and 7 on an upper-mainstream mobile system. Read More
-
Windows 7 And Windows Vista: Performance Compared
Microsoft is hyping Windows 7 as the operating system that everyone should adopt. We'd already done a bit of benchmarking in the new OS, but we revisit a longer list of tests today, including more real-world tasks, like boot-up, hibernate, and shutdown. Read More









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.
Microsoft is already running Linux actually.http://news.netcraft.com/archives/ [...] oint_.html
Windows is a Linux distro.... please tell more. That is why Ballmer referred to linux as a virus. But I consider Windows to be much more of a virus than Linux of pandemic proportions.
"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.
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?
He might mean in the server world, where linux has a much more noticeable presence
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.
This is the biggest reverse paradigm ever.
Pretty much
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%.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I'm a programmer. MS has the best software development tools in the industry.
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.
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?
(buncha stuff)
Linux != UNIX
UNIX > (Windows+Linux)
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 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.
But Visual Studio isn't the only thing the MSDN people make. It's just the most well known.
It's also the only one I use, so I couldn't talk about much else.
If Windows is so simple, why is there such a big 3rd-party tech support market for home PCs?
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...
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.
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.
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.
http://www.openlina.com/
Linux applications can run in Windows.