M$ Hypothetical: GNU/NT Operating System


Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: M$ Hypothetical: GNU/NT Operating System

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Tech
    Posts
    118

    M$ Hypothetical: GNU/NT Operating System

    Ok, its 20 years from now, and a new age is brought upon the computing world as Microsoft, under force of the federal government, concedes defeat and enters the new GNU computing economy. So MS enters the GNU playing field with GNU-NT (same ole NT just a new license with GNU tools ie gcc, vi, emacs...) with nifty Windows(R) interfaces around them (MS Visual Studio becomes an ide using gcc...)

    Would a GNU/NT operating system atract members of the "geek" community? Would you use/tinker with it? We always sit here and posit the plausibility of a MS Linux, I say screw that, they are too proud of their own work. A GNU/NT is perhaps just as improbable, but would it be attractive to the GNU community?

    Forgive me if this has been debated endlessly, it has sprung into my head and must be shared!
    ...your friendly neighborhood historian...

    RH 8.0
    P3 550 Mhz, 256 Meg RAM
    ATI All in Wonder 128 32mb, Soundblaster PCI 128

    Everybody loves http://www.homestarrunner.com !

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    729
    How much would it cost, though?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    Microsoft already sells a couple of packages which include various GNU tools. They are, according to MS marketing, designed to aid developers and administrators in their efforts to migrate between MS and Unix as well a migrate software to the Windows platform.

    If you are asking about an OS designed using the GNU system and the NT kernel...would you people please get over it. Check your history regarding MS and Xenix/Unix. I think you'll find that your posts are pure filghts of fancy. It's getting to be annoying seeing so many ill-informed people starting this type of thread. How many does this make? I lost count.
    Last edited by El_Cu_Guy; 04-06-2003 at 12:05 PM.
    Social Engineering Specialist
    Because the is no patch for human stupidity

    I spent a night in Paris. Wanna see the video?

    This post has been brought to you by the STFU Foundation.

    The Origins and Future of Open Source Software
    A NetAction Whitepaper by Nathan Newman

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Birthplace of Parliamentary Democracy
    Posts
    233
    Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
    It's getting to be annoying seeing so many ill-informed people starting this type of thread.
    Ill informed in what sense? People speculating on a possibility are not necessarily ill-informed, even if the possibility is anathema to you. All things are possible, and a GNU system on top of an NT kernel is perfectly possible (although I can't see why it might be desirable).
    It's an OS, Bill, but not as we know it....

    Quid Plantavit Curabit.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,333
    In 20 years we won't be using familiar software. I don't think people will be using GNOME, KDE, or even Windows in 2023. Those will be in the museums. I think somewhere between now and then we will migrate away from these primitive mice/keyboard/monitor workstations to something much better.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    Ill informed in what sense?
    I think that was already answered in my comment about history regarding the history between MS, SCO, Xenix/Unix, thank you very much.


    People speculating on a possibility are not necessarily ill-informed, even if the possibility is anathema to you.
    What possibility? Even if SCO were to fold it would likely seel its assets to another company. This company would likely not be Microsoft as many would step in to before Bill could pull out his check book. Purching SCO would keep the contract between SCO and MS forbidding it from re-entering the Unix market (by releasing its own unice, not related tools such as a version of the korn shell for W2K).

    All things are possible, and a GNU system on top of an NT kernel is perfectly possible (although I can't see why it might be desirable).
    The post proposes the possibility that MS would release a GNU/NT OS. See above regarding my comment about history.

    However, your belief in this possibility exist if the GNU/NT hoopla would arise from outside Microsoft which even even more unlikely considering the licensing of the NT kernel. By the time MS was forced to release this (as demanded by some future antitrust case for example) the code would be so old an worthless that nobody would bother with it anyway.

    I suppose we'll see numerous posts like this in the near future. I'm guessing that someone will start a post mentioning how Microsoft might use Xenix code and create their own unice forgetting that MS doesn't even own Xenix anymore.
    Social Engineering Specialist
    Because the is no patch for human stupidity

    I spent a night in Paris. Wanna see the video?

    This post has been brought to you by the STFU Foundation.

    The Origins and Future of Open Source Software
    A NetAction Whitepaper by Nathan Newman

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Tech
    Posts
    118
    Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
    I think that was already answered in my comment about history regarding the history between MS, SCO, Xenix/Unix, thank you very much.




    What possibility? Even if SCO were to fold it would likely seel its assets to another company. This company would likely not be Microsoft as many would step in to before Bill could pull out his check book. Purching SCO would keep the contract between SCO and MS forbidding it from re-entering the Unix market (by releasing its own unice, not related tools such as a version of the korn shell for W2K).



    The post proposes the possibility that MS would release a GNU/NT OS. See above regarding my comment about history.

    However, your belief in this possibility exist if the GNU/NT hoopla would arise from outside Microsoft which even even more unlikely considering the licensing of the NT kernel. By the time MS was forced to release this (as demanded by some future antitrust case for example) the code would be so old an worthless that nobody would bother with it anyway.

    I suppose we'll see numerous posts like this in the near future. I'm guessing that someone will start a post mentioning how Microsoft might use Xenix code and create their own unice forgetting that MS doesn't even own Xenix anymore.
    I don't beleive in its posibility, I was more curious about the GNU's communitys acceptance (technically and otherwise) of such an operating system. Would it be completly worthless?
    ...your friendly neighborhood historian...

    RH 8.0
    P3 550 Mhz, 256 Meg RAM
    ATI All in Wonder 128 32mb, Soundblaster PCI 128

    Everybody loves http://www.homestarrunner.com !

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tampa, FL USA
    Posts
    2,193
    Originally posted by pythagras Would it be completly worthless?
    I've been watching this thread since you started it and been trying hard to hold my tongue 'till now. I was just hoping that no one would reply to it, and it would go away.

    The answer is Yes. It would be completely worthless. People don't switch to Linux if they are happy using Windows. If they were happy using Windows, they never would have become Linux users.

    I did a poll in one of my posts before. The question was:
    "Microsoft should go..."
    One person voted for go Open Source
    Everyone else voted for go To Hell

    There's your answer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Pontypridd, South Wales (UK)
    Posts
    771
    There's not much love in this thread

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Birthplace of Parliamentary Democracy
    Posts
    233
    Someone has spoken out of turn in the Linux church
    It's an OS, Bill, but not as we know it....

    Quid Plantavit Curabit.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Birthplace of Parliamentary Democracy
    Posts
    233
    Originally posted by Sepero
    If they were happy using Windows, they never would have become Linux users.
    Without wishing to stir up a storm, the words 'sweeping' and 'statement' come to mind, as do 'round' and 'objects'. I know several people who use Linux out of curiosity, to broaden their OS experience, or just for fun. They are quite happy using Windows (2k or XP, admittedly) when the mood takes them, and frankly they laugh at me if I ever show signs of Linux militancy (I get laughed at quite a lot )
    It's an OS, Bill, but not as we know it....

    Quid Plantavit Curabit.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    974
    well break it down..

    gnu/linux versus gnu/nt

    they would all have the same base stuff, ls, mv etc, the idea of a terminal and x windows would most likely be there. The only major difference would be the kernel. And simple testing would show whether the nt kernel at that time would be better/worse than bsd and linux kernels.

    That's oversimplifying it, and also assuming that X windows would be the gui, which I don't think would be true, ms would have their own thing most likely.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Where am I?
    Posts
    100
    It would be called NTNU (NT's not Unix) and it wouldn't run ls, mv, ... because it wouldn't be a unice. And any attempt to connect it with the existing GNU base would cataclysmically combine, instantly annihilating the universe. In other words, when Janet Reno looks sexy, Bill Gates' voice lowers, and Linus Torvalds decides to use only Microsoft product, then we can worry about this horrible, horrible future. Until then, however...
    The best protection from future obsolescence is to use something that is already obsolete. -CmdrTostado (653672) on /.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Pontypridd, South Wales (UK)
    Posts
    771
    It doesn't matter how you look at it.......Microsoft will never compete in the linux market. They have two reasons (IMHO) that stop them:

    1) Their business model is (and has always been) based on creating de-facto standards and stamping out the competition by any means possible. The actual quality of the product is secondary to it's percieved value (ie. there are no alternatives). Just browse these off-topic forums to see how many people we talk to who have no idea of what linux really is and you'll understand how well microsoft have done their job! In the desktop market, the majority of people that have heard of linux don't understand it's something you can replace windows with. The linux business model is a polar opposite. Microsoft only have the dominant position they do because of the amount of money they control. A switch to open source would mean changing their entire business from the ground up......into one that, by nature, could not produce the same amount of money.

    2) Pride!! Microsoft make their own products.....they try to control all aspects of the business's they are in. For them to create a *nix system would be the same as admitting defeat.

    I'm sorry if i've gone wildy off the point of this thread but the only thing microsoft will do to spoil the linux party is to continue to force us to reverse engineer many popular formats (keeping us a step behind) and doing their best to re-inforce the myth that windows is the de-facto OS and that everything else is a curiousity for geeks and hobbyists


    Maybe they will port some of their more popular products to linux if they think there's enough money to be made but that probably won't be until one of the big players (eg adobe, macromedia etc..) proves that the linux crowd will pay for proprietry software...............something i don't think we'll see for a long time. There simply isn't enough killer apps that linux is lacking......IMHO photoshop, flash, a few office apps and the latest games are some of only a few potential ports that would be financially viable for companies. Even then, it's getting better all the time. With products like VMware, win4lin and wine/wineX getting better all the time......it's hard to see who's going to pay for a linux port when the windows version is already running fine with one of the above products? For example, i already have photoshop7 working perfectly with win4lin......i'm not going to pay for a linux port if it was released. In fact, future releases of the gimp will probably stop me using PS alltogether!

    To try and tie this in with the original subject........if microsoft were forced to enter the *nix market. It could only be because the computing world had already decieded that *nix was now the de-facto standard. Then it would be like sega stopping making consoles and making software for everyone else's consoles. Difference here is that, by then, microsofts flaws would have been exposed to the public......they would have no reputation to launch an IBM style 'solutions' company.

    Good god! i just went off on one.....please excuse me, move on to the next post please"

    Raoul


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1
    Hi! I'm from the future...
    Okay, I just found this thread by searching for "GNU/NT" on Google.
    In case you missed today/yesterday's news: Windows gets the ability to run Ubuntu Linux binaries natively.

    Interestingly it seems that views have been changed in the last 13 years (since the start of this thread).

    More discussions on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comme..._bring_ubuntu/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •