Do any of you think that someday, Windows and Linux OS’s will be able to work together peacefully?
It may sound silly right now (I mean, MS’s biggest enemy is Mac, and after that Linux) but it may be likely. For the following reasons:
Linux is growing in popularity very gradually; it may be that one day, Linux is too big a force for Microsoft to ignore. That may trigger two actions: either MS makes a new, whizz-bang amazing OS to compete (which is almost impossible ), or MS agrees to work with Linux (I know that won’t be very good for Linux )
Although this is a bit too far-fetched, it might happen: Since Microsoft loses hundreds of customers to Linux due to their EULA’s restrictions, Windows might become open source. I’m not saying this’ll happen overnight, it’ll take a lot of time. Windows becoming open source might make Linux and MS work together. Not as if I’m going to trust Microsoft even then; Microsoft is completely unpredictable.
Doubtful that Win will become at any point open source. There are lots of legal issues MS has to work out before this. It’s more likely for MS to bring out its own Linux distro than make Win fully open source
Novell (the company backing openSUSE) and Microsoft are supposedly already working jointly in making Linux and Windows work together nicely on a server. I do not know of any such cooperation for the desktop, but we do have wine and samba.
However, as a person gets more used to Linux software, you find that you rely on Microsoft less and less.
I suspect if you’d asked people on a Mac forum a few years ago whether they would end up running a BSD kernel in a few years they’d mostly have laughed at you.
These things do progress in surprising directions. But personally, I think the ‘many eyes, many hands’ approach is fundamentally better for anything that is likely to motivate examination and experimentation by lots of people, and that includes the underlying basis of an operating system.
I guess the long run trend will be for high level languages to develop to the point where people can knock together end user software without really understanding much about the underlying system at all - arguably this is already true to an extent.
And once you get an explosion of userspace free software, the users will come across to the (already technically superior) open source base systems.
There will still be space for closed source providers to sell desktops and office suites and such things (and indeed games) to stick on top of the common base, but the idea of making your own, proprietary operating system (except in very marginal roles, like the odd embedded system) will die out.
Where did I say that? I specifically only talked about him asking if MS will ever likely release Win as open source. There is no mention whatsoever in my previous reply about interoperability. Why? Because I didn’t talk about that. You’re making wrong conclusions and assumptions from my post
Microsoft will NEVER make their system open source, too many backdoors, too many tools sending probably all possible information about a user. For every company there comes a moment they become too big to be ignored and after that moment CIA/FBI/God knows who/what else must have a way to spy on users. If they wouldn’t agree they wouldn’t be allowed to grow so BIG, so i suspect google already made such deal in order to be allowed to become so BIG, every company faces that. I don’t care since i got nothing to hide (yet ), think about it, most of the projects from google are open source BUT we don’t know what happens on their servers when we use gmail or their other tools.
If you search for Martin Armstrong and his Economic Pi Theory you will find out that he IIRC has been approached by CIA and refused to cooperate and then not a long after that he has been framed and is in prison right now.
I guess Microsoft made too many bad moves and has been slated to DIE so a new company emerges this time with a slogan “don’t do evil” or whatever but this time when we will become completely dependable on their services it will be VERY VERY hard to change it in case their motto changes.
Also notice that the biggest growing companies are companies that manage some informations about us, twitter, facebook etc. coincidence?
Let me show you my “Linux_on_the_desktop_mantra”-script
while i -le 2524 ]]
do echo "$i will be _THE_ Year for Linux on the desktop"
echo "And now for some entertainment"
echo "Please get your accoustic guitar and a tambourine"
echo "Now lite a little camp-fire and gather around it"
echo "You have 10 seconds"
echo "Everybody, sing along"
echo "In the Year 2525"
echo "If man was still alive ...."
echo "Now it is time to get out any legal or illegal drugs and start consuming them"
echo "Have fun ....."
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:16:01 +0000, microchip8 wrote:
> hendersj;2045655 Wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:36:02 +0000, microchip8 wrote:
>> > Doubtful that Win will become at any point open source.
>> True, but that doesn’t mean Windows and Linux can’t (and don’t)
>> Jim Henderson
>> openSUSE Forums Moderator
> Where did I say that? I specifically only talked about him asking if
> MS will ever likely release Win as open source. There is no mention
> whatsoever in my previous reply about interoperability. Why? Because I
> didn’t talk about that. You’re making wrong conclusions and assumptions
> from my post
No, I was commenting on the overall idea. I don’t always limit my
comments to just what’s in the post I’m quoting or replying to.
What does it matter!!! And why should be we so concerned about what Microsoft does?? I sometimes really do not understand why do people keep comparing and wishing that Windows goes the Linux way!! Aren’t they satisfied with Linux, or is it that they would prefer to have M$… Windows and Linux are two systems diagonally opposite to each other, in philosophy and as well as in action. If M$ wants to be closed, let it be… They have got the dollars, let them decide how they want to spend it
I specifically talked about open source Win and whether it’ll happen or not.
I nowhere even mentioned interoperability
You quoted me, specifically the first sentence where I said that MS will probably not open source Win and then removed the rest of my text to focus on this first sentence.
you replied to this by saying that “this doesn’t mean Win & Lin don’t or can’t interoperate”
As if me talking only about if MS will make Win open source (or won’t make it) somehow implies that Win is not interoperable with Lin due to its closed current nature.
Seriously, it doesn’t make much sense to me to quote my text and then talk about interoperability as if my text somehow implies that even if I only talked about open sourcing Win. May I suggest in the future not to quote like that and insert posts which have nothing to do with open sourcing Win? If one wants to talk about the grand context of the whole thread, then one should post a new reply and not quote something that has little to do with interoperability.
In the news a short time ago (1 month I think) Canada made a landmark decision by forcing facebook to handle it’s privacy of personal information restrictive and also enabling users to delete their personal information when they leave facebook. I think they were given until January 2010 to have the new implements in place.