[normanmatrix]

I have a feeling that Windows Nano Server w/ Powershell + .NET Core might make this text relevant again soon. Having a consistent OS that scales from containers to servers and desktop is a big benefit in corporate. Now if it matched performance of an Alpine, played well with WSL, and Microsoft would manage to push the major open source stuff for compatibility. I'd give Linux 5 years. But only time will tell..

[3np]

I really, really hope that you're wrong.

I optimistically hope a not-too-future (within 10y?) major version update of Windows is in reality a *nix distribution. As long as they can keep runtime compatibility with older versions of Windows software, I think it'd be a big win for Microsoft for various reasons.

The only real challenge would be to get driver vendors in line.

[rswail]

I don't think either is likely. Linux is embedded into the cloud space and the embedded space.

People have been down the Windows CE and Windows RT rabbit holes before. Windows Nano does nothing there.

In the server space, it's a possibility, but why? Other than running MS specific software, what is the benefit?

On the other hand, even with WSL2, Linux is not going to have it's mythologized "year of the desktop", unless you count Chromebooks. So Windows will maintain its niche there.

[ThinkBeat]

Why would you want that? That is the last thing I want.

It is like saying that in ten years we will only have Pepsi Cola. As the only soft drink. You can get Pepsi Cola Mint ,Pepsi Cola Cherry, Pepsi Cola regular etc.

But no matter what it will always be Pepsi Cola.

I want more, a lot more viable operating systems than we have ow. Now is a sad place to be.

Linux was never created to be a modern operating system.

Parts in Windows NT -> were derived from VMS, though more and more of it removed. Some parts were removed and had to be reinvented (WSL).

Bacm in the days, you could pick different hardware you could pick different oses (often tied to specific hardware).

I liked Atari ST TOS/GEM. I thought it was way ahead of its time.

I did not think that PCs in the beginning of the Atari STs were even comparable. Lots of peple loved the Amiga, great machine. Some people had the Archimdes. (ARM). You had Macs with PowerPC. Lots of choice and lots of competition.

Now you buy a computer of a specific design with little direct competition, though that is improving now.

And you can pick between Linux or Windows.

A single computer architecture. A singe choice +1 for operating systems.

I would really want to own a POWER powered Linux machine but the are tragically expensive.For the most part they do share the same architecture still.

On mobile, we have Android or iOS. Android has a lot of shared architecture for obvious reasons and iOS most certainly does.

It is like the American election, which white geriatric misogynists would you like?

Linux is fully geriatric. WindowsNT is getting there too.

Can we please have a couple of teenage operating systems? Some new viable babies?

[3np]

Some that you forget: BSD (Net, Open, Free, Dragon), macOS, OpenVMS, Haiku.

And hey, I’m sure if you work on implementing one maybe others will be interested in writing software for it. And that’s kind of the point, I guess: it’s a huge undertaking with little financial value for a business as opposed to extending on existing work. Standards give us a common language.

[UncleSlacky]

Haiku, maybe?

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> I optimistically hope a not-too-future (within 10y?) major version update of Windows is in reality a *nix distribution.

I very much hope you are wrong, as this will signal the death of personal computing.

[3np]

Why so? Imagine the WSL will eventually molding into an LSW. The end-user experience needn't be affected apart from the more technical power-users.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Because frankly I think the Linux Desktop as it exists is incompatible with a good personal computing platform. I have rambled on at quite some length about this elsewhere on HN. Were Windows to become just another cobbled-together leaky abstraction of a desktop on top of Linux, it would suffer from all of the same problems.

[3np]

How much have you worked directly with the WinAPIs? Because oh lord.

I imagine it'd be more holistic and maybe not so similar to current desktop distros. No X11 for sure, but not sure if it'd even be wayland.

May not even be Linux - BSD seems more likely of the two, especially considering licenses. Remember that Apple did the same transition with OS X (which has roots in BSD).

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> How much have you worked directly with the WinAPIs? Because oh lord.

What does that have to do with anything? Yeah, they're often anachronistic, but that's to be expected of something with over 2 decades of ABI compatibility.

> No X11 for sure, but not sure if it'd even be wayland.

WDDM and DWM have supported features for over a decade that Wayland still doesn't support.