Could Windows switch to the Linux kernel?

You guys might have read or heard about conjectures regarding Microsoft and Linux. Specifically, that Microsoft might, in the future, replace the windows kernel with something based on Linux. While I personally don't think this is going to happen, like, not at all, let's see why people might think that it's in the cards.

Join this channel to get access to a monthly patroncast and vote on the next topics I'll cover:

Support the channel on Patreon:

So first, Eric Raymond, one of the founders of the open source movement, wrote a blog post explaining that MS will definitely move to Linux as the base for Windows. I'll leave a link to this article in the description, but his arguments boil down to this:

- PC sales are down and will keep decreasing as more people use tablets and phones. This means that Windows is less and less profitable, and will in time turn into a drag on their business.
- Windows subsystem for Linux allows to run unmodified Linux binaries on Windows without emulation.
- Proton and Wine allow people to run Windows software at near performance parity, and if it can run games, it can run anything.
- Microsoft is porting some of their software to Linux, and it can only make sense if they're trying to test their internal emulation layer.

Now, let's see why I think none of these arguments make sense:

- Financially, Windows isn't a burden to MS. It's free for the user, but not for the manufacturer. Hardware manufacturers that ship windows pay a fee to Microsoft, which is very lucrative. While it's not what they're focusing on right now, it's also a good source of income, and I don't see them just replacing the kernel because Windows doesn't make as much money as other things. The moment where PCs aren't needed in the workspace is far, far away. Manufacturers will keep selling workstations and laptops to companies for the foreseeable future, and this generates money for Microsoft. A lot of money, probably enough, without any other client, to keep developing their own kernel.

- WSL: WSL is the exact opposite of porting windows to use the Linux kernel. It's allowing Windows to use Linux software WITHOUT running the Linux kernel. I personally think this is the route Windows is going to take to cater to developers and sysadmins that prefer working on Linux.

- Wine and Proton: running games is easier than running desktop programs. Games all use one of 3 APIS: DIrectX12, Vulkan, or OpenGL. Vulkan and OpenGL are native to Linux, so getting games that use these is pretty easy, once you get the main windows executable started. Direct X doesn't exist on Linux, but DXVK, a translation layer, allows to transform the calls into Vulkan calls, and this has opened up a huge amount of games to Linux.
Desktop programs, on the other hand, are way harder to run. They use their own toolkits, their own frameworks, and they don't look the same at all. Some will make use of a specific graphics API, some will use their own custom solution. Supporting all of these is very complex.

- Porting software: what Microsoft ported is all stuff based on electron, or Chromium. Edge is based on Chromium, which already runs on Linux. Porting it is a low hanging fruit, not a hard development effort. Teams is a webapp, running with electron. It doesn't take any effort to give that to Linux users. What we haven't seen yet, is Office 365, which is the big moneymaker for Microsoft.

- Emulation: Windows is already trying to emulate x86 on ARM, with much less success than Apple: their Surface Pro X is crippled by this, x86 software doesn't run that well, and most review point out it's bad in terms of performance. Sure, emulating Linux on the same architecture might not incur the same performance penalty, but if windows is going to use an emulation layer, wouldn't they contribute to Wine, since it's already super advanced ? They don't seem to be.

- Compatibility: if you switch to a Linux kernel, sure, you could get windows apps running. But not the drivers. Manufacturers have, for decades, created drivers and software suites that only work with Windows and its kernel. This can't really be emulated. They have to be ported. Moving to a Linux kernel would virtually mean that everything that isn't plug and play would have to have their drivers re-developed from the ground up. Once again, I don't see Microsoft doing that and alienating their whole hardware ecosystem.

[happyherwi]

That "No" at the beginning caught me off guard. I should've expected that. haha

[justjadethings]

That "no" at the beginning was great

[AtomToast]

I think it's a really good point that WSL actually hurts linux adoption. For example at my work there used to be a movement for a long time about trying to get linux work stations. That basically just got nullified through WSL and now we are still stuck on windows

[ozrencupac]

If that happens microsoft will make a fork of wine and call it winecrosoft

[Unclecoconuts]

i was drinking beer. he shouted "No no no...". I had self introspection. Quit drinking.

[ashishpatel]

Linux community is stupid to think we compete with windows when in reality it's more osx.

[leaf-]

It does sound rather unlike Microsoft!

[Casidian_]

Even if Microsoft did switch to the Linux kernel, I would still not use it.

[Dr.Mohandes]

If microsoft wants to switch to something unix-like
it's probably going to be BSD or something because they can turn it into a Proprietary software
switching to linux kernel is dream that will never happen in reality

[fuseteam]

everybody skeptical untill microsoft actually ports microsoft office to linux

[burninorable]

This would be my dream. Everything would be Unix based and I will never have to use backslashes for directory paths, or compile code for that god-awful NT kernel ever again. I don't think it will happen, but it would be amazing.

[SkyyySi]

TL;DR: Either Microsoft spends an enormous amount of time and money to make the Linux kernel into the NT kernel - or they just stick with the NT kernel.

[danieldudas]

People: Could Windows switch to the Linux kernel?
The Linux Experiment: That's not how this works.

[RoyMcLellan]

When I first saw the video, I though "wow, 12 minutes to say 'no'? " Then you started the video that same way. I was half expecting you to just get up and walk away and leave the camera running.

I feel like all your points are very valid, and I agree with you. The ONLY thing keeping me on Windows at this point is VR. I bought a WMR headset, and love it. But I can't afford another one that will work on Linux, and I use it all the time. I'm probably a minority in this regard though.

[lawrencedoliveiro]

3:08 A big part of Microsoft’s problem is that the Windows kernel and the GUI and all the other parts are so intricately tied together. This leads to greater complexity, and unexpected interactions, and lots more bugs. So cutting out the Windows kernel, and moving to a more modular Linux-style layering approach, would greatly improve the reliability of Windows.

[rageagainstthebath]

I was a strong believer that Windows on Linux kernel is just a matter of time, but now I am not so sure. Let's remember that Windows used to have two separate kernels, NT and "that other one", and XP was the first one on the consumer market to use NT kernel. It DID cause compatibility problems, but it was rather quickly solved by software companies themselves. I still think this is possible that Windows Server will be based on Linux kernel, where it makes the most sense: Companies often prefer Linux servers, Windows makes the most money on companies, so hey, why not?

[louddesignstudios]

When you see all adobe apps, autodesk and the big games... Work on Linux then Microsoft would have something to worry about...

[egonbraun]

IMHO Windows moving towards a Linux kernel is more a vanity vendetta of a part of the FOSS community than something based on facts. It's just a way to say "we won". For me, I want Microsoft to prosperate and I would like to see more both communities to come together and fight for a Microsoft that will respect its customers (paid or not), respect privacy and plays fair. We should strive for diversity and not homogeny, and that for me is the point open source community struggles to understand. It's always MY SOFTWARE is better than YOURS. It's Microsoft versus Linux. Gnome versus KDE. RPM vs DEB. SystemV vs BSD. Arch Linux vs Ubuntu. Compile myself vs Download Binary. It feels that we are looking for something to divide us instead of uniting us.

Windows does not need to become Linux. Linux does not need to become Windows. They just need to work better together and focus on improving user experience and privacy.

[HeikkiKetoharju]

You are absolutely correct.

By the way, I think that huge driver porting show actually happened during Windows Vista release, and if I remember correctly, no one liked it much.

One thing to add here: I bet nowadays most of the really innovative development happens on smartphones and web applications. And I bet most (or at least half) of those developers run MacOS or Linux. This is a problem for Redmond and I bet they know this and try to do something. If you lose developers from your platform, you are on risk losing software later on.

One last thing: Is Windows really still unstable today? I have heard this repeated on the web during the last 15 years. I haven't used Windows in 15 years, so I don't know if it is still true. Haven't they really fixed their issues during these years?

[arianitonline]

I don't understand where people get this kind phantasy