[rl3]

>We need another closed-source unix/linux-based operating system that throws away X.org and its attempted modern replacements, that can directly compete with OS X.

In context of laptops, Microsoft is in a position to kick serious ass on this front should they wish to. Their Surface hardware line is vastly superior to Apple at the moment.

Windows Subsystem For Linux (WSL) looks promising but is still in its infancy. Unfortunately it will likely have severe limitations for some time, and even then there's no escaping the fact it runs atop Windows.

In my opinion, there's a few rather crazy options:

1. Ship the Surface line with a hypervisor by default. Provide full official driver support for the hardware in both Windows and Linux environments. That means first-class Wacom support on Linux. Ditto power management, touchpad and wireless. Run Windows and Linux simultaneously, with interop support.

2. Reengineer the Windows kernel to update itself without the incessant need to reboot all the time. Windows Update is a piece of crap that needs to be replaced by a proper package manager anyways (at least under the hood). Then, double down on WSL until it's practically at parity with a real Linux install. Failing that, integrate a guest VM with full hardware acceleration and driver support.

3. Microsoft develops their own Linux distro and calls it Windows Developer Edition. Fuse the best parts of each OS together. Windows' existing graphics infrastructure ported as a desktop environment. Native D3D. Native Windows binaries. First-class driver support. A UI oriented towards pure modularity and customization.

I concede the third item is simply fantasy, but we can always dream.

[hobarrera]

I don't get why people insist that the whole "bash on windows" things makes it a suitable replacement for Linux. It's like when people say "oh, but OS X has a terminal as well".

I don't use Linux just because of the terminal. Package managers (and the ability to deterministically install/uninstall packages!!) are one of the strongest pilars. WMs I like are another (we'll each have a preference, mine bine i3wm). And finally, a [somewhat] sane, understandable filesystem hierarchy.

Windows is still so, so far from all of those, that it's still not even close to being a suitable replacement.

[WayneBro]

> Package managers...

But bash on Windows includes apt. It's all of Ubuntu running on the Windows NT kernel instead of the Linux kernel...

> WMs...

Windows has one of the best window managers around and you can make it do pretty much anything you want.

> ...understandable filesystem hierarchy...

Done. And it's actually simpler than any Unix filesystem that I've seen. Obviously millions of users and devs use the Windows filesystem to great success. What parts of the Windows fileystem are you having trouble understanding?

Imagine a filesystem where you don't spread one single application's files around to 10 different locations which differ based on the target distro...that's Windows.

[hobarrera]

It's not the same to dumping some package manager on top of an OS (like apt on bash) to having it be part of the core OS.

When a package manager is part of the core OS, it handles ALL installed apps, and can update, or remove anything.

apt on bash won't update my firefox, or let me uninstall apps. Stuff will make it in sideways, and won't be tracked by any package manager.

> Windows has one of the best window managers around and you can make it do pretty much anything you want.

Like I said, there's a strong matter of preference, but what can objectively be said is that ONE window manager isn't enough for everybody, and everybody want something different. That's why you have different WMs on Linux.

Also, Windows' WM (whatever it's called) can't do any of the stuff i3wm does, so you're just exagerating.

> Obviously millions of users and devs use the Windows filesystem to great success.

Users don't count, because they barely interact with it. And when they do, they have to follow guides, because they can't understand it. Go ahead. Ask any windows user where specific stuff is stored.

> Imagine a filesystem where you don't spread one single application's files around to 10 different locations which differ based on the target distro...that's Windows.

Why is that a good thing? If you want to know how owns a file, we have package managers to track that.

[WayneBro]

> ...can't do any of the stuff i3wm does..

What exactly do you think i3wm can do that Windows 10 can't be made to do?

Windows 10 has tiling and workspaces. I can add any number of automations via AutoHotKey.

> Users don't count, because they barely interact with it...

Didn't I mention the millions of devs that are on Windows? I also live with a 3rd grade school teacher and she absolutely uses the heck out of the Windows file system. Anyway - as a developer, I use Linux, Mac and Windows to build Node.js and Cordova apps and I use them all fully. Linux for servers, Mac for iOS builds and the occasional Swift app...and Windows for Android and Web development. I just can't see what you think is so "unusable" about Windows filesystem.

Honestly, it just sounds to me like you just hate Windows without even knowing anything about it.

> It's not the same to dumping some package manager on top of an OS (like apt on bash) to having it be part of the core OS...

It might as well be since even on Linux you have to break out of the package manager often in order to get work done!

Have you not seen the hundreds of FOSS projects that ask you to install by curling a shell script right off their site? You can't do shit with just a package manager.

In any case - I'd rather not get stuck using one OS forever. Linux leaves a LOT to be desired. That's why I use multiple systems and I am well versed in each of them. Life would seem so dull if I only knew one OS. I feel sorry for people who are so adamant about never using some tech because of their politics or whatever.

[developer2]

>> Windows is still so, so far from all of those, that it's still not even close to being a suitable replacement.

As a developer who does not develop using any Microsoft technologies, this couldn't be farther from the truth. I left my previous job specifically because all 600+ employees were unequivocally required to use Windows. The company and coworkers were by far the best I've worked with, but it became no longer worth the daily frustration of fighting my toolset just to even try and get work done. Oh, you are using VMs on Windows? No, you cannot have a case-sensitive folder share. Symlinks accessible on both the host and guest? Never!

Windows is a disaster. Neither Putty nor cygwin provide an acceptable remote terminal, and PowerShell is a joke as a local console. Multiple monitors with multiple spaces/desktops per screen is impossible to use on a native install, and the third party offerings are all buggy beyond belief. Win+Tab looks like something a 5 year old would design.

I'm back to working for a company who will buy the hardware you request. I finally realized I'm senior enough to be able to ask for the hardware and software licenses I need to be productive; any pushback during the interviewing phase or post-interview negotiations simply means I move on to the next company. I am grateful to have reached the point where I have the freedom to choose.

[cube2222]

If you don't get it, try it. It's not just bash. It's the whole Ubuntu userspace. Yes, you can use apt-get there.

[hobarrera]

See my above reply for details to sibling comment, but basically, dumping a package manager on a running OS isn't the same as having a package manager to properly track installed apps.

This apt-get will only track stuff installed via it, while there's dozens of other stuff that just made it in sideways.

Also, ¿Can I run X, i3wm, etc? ¿Can I get rid of the entire Windows DE?

My point is, I don't use bash, because I want all the above. I've no complaint if you prefer windows, that's your choice. But don't tell Linux users that windows is now the same just because you have bash.

[20after4]

but it's _on windows_ so what's the point?

:P

[pjmlp]

A better OS stack, where devs are busy moving beyond C, has better asynchronous IO stack, kernel level thread pools, embraces a mixed architecture with separated kernel and personalities, driver crashes don't bring the OS down, embraced by the games and graphics communities, allows for multi-GPU usage ....

[microtonal]

Hardware support + you can run the Adobe suites, Microsoft Office, etc.?

I think WSL will be very successful among developers. You can just get any laptop from the store that runs Windows 10 and have Linux running at native speed (except I/O, which is currently a bottleneck in WSL) at the same time without the hardware compatibility problems, etc.

[WayneBro]

More hardware support, more software, better software, more users...

What's your point?