Computerworld: Call me crazy, but Windows 11 could run on Linux.

https://computerworld.com/article/...

The last para sums it up nicely

It would be absolutely epic if this ever does happen.

@RememberMe It would be yet another sign that corporate interests have subverted the open source community. The whole point of open source is to not be dependent on proprietary intellectual property (even though that's never worked as well as it should) so it should be concerning to see so much proprietary stuff coming to Linux without corresponding openness. (EXFAT, anyone?)

Although, Linus Torvalds did say once that Microsoft making software for Linux would mean that Free Software won, so....

@powerfulparadox it's business, nobody really cares who "wins" as long as it leads to increased value.

A Linux that's influenced by corporate interests is still much better and way more open than what we started out with, so I would take it as a step forward.

@RememberMe The caveat is that they can make us dependent on them again, and subvert the meaning of open source by keeping essential core aspects of their software proprietary. (Or, more likely, pulling the license for their software patents and re-licensing their software as proprietary simultaneously after widespread adoption.)

In practice I'm probably close to agreement with you, but I think it's also worth understanding the potential consequences of allying with people who have sworn to destroy open source and whose operating strategy for years was defined by the mantra "embrace, extend, extinguish." Hopefully they've actually changed and we aren't in the middle of the embrace and extend phase of their new plan.

@RememberMe As for the increased value argument, the question that very few ask is "value for whom?" Value for a corporation and/or its shareholders can be very different from value for users and developers.

@powerfulparadox Linux isn't a service that Microsoft owns, so it's kinda hard for MS to kill it all by itself. And there's always an escape hatch, just fork the code eg. like what the linux-libre guys do.

A powerful balancing force is that multiple large corporations are invested in Linux now, so I don't really see an "extinguish" type scenario happening anytime soon.

@RememberMe It doesn't have to be soon, and if they lure away all the incoming mindshare for certain critical, core components with lucrative contracts (and NDAs, of course) they could easily hijack enough parts of the system to make maintaining a fork difficult, especially if they did something like systemd which has made a lot of non-init software dependent on it.

Again, I agree that it's unlikely, especially short-term. Saying it couldn't happen ignores the greediness of big corporations and the willingness of some to play a very long game, especially if they can make a fraction of the money they expect to make later by playing the good guy.

I'm finished sounding like a conspiracy nut, so I'll go do my regular thing now.

Embrace extend extinguish. This is not a good thing.

@RantSomeWhere I agree to a certain extent, but let's not let the open software become so dependant on closed mindshare that it ceases to remain open.

@RantSomeWhere I think I'm doing a poor job of explaining where I'm coming from, because people keep saying "it's unlikely" or "I doubt that will happen." It doesn't matter if it's unlikely, because unlikely things happen all the time. What matters are the conditions for possibility and the vigilance of the community. I'm not saying we shouldn't rejoice in what has been going on. We should. But we should also do what we can to ensure things stay that way (i.e., ensure standards are actually open, reject patented software as much as possible, etc.). It's those who lose their vigilance who are surprised by the things they thought would never happen, while the vigilant often prevent the same things from happening.

@powerfulparadox speaks wisdom. Listen.

Of microsoft eat linux is the end of modern stable computing XD