Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Has A Large Presence At This Year's X.Org Conference

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Danniello
    replied
    Ehhh, I'm not very optimistic about this...

    Microsoft trying hard to create 100% operational Linux inside Windows. In theory it is great thing, but the problem is that they are doing NOTHING in opposite direction (I mean no Microsoft contributions about increase Windows compatibility in QEMU/KVM and/or Wine).

    The problem is that when they accomplish it (and Microsoft is very near because of open nature of Linux) - there will be no reason for "average user" to use "bare metal" Linux! Why to brother installing and configuring "bare metal" Linux if the same could be accomplish inside Windows? It is even better from user perspective - on Windows you could launch all Windows AND Linux applications (including 3D acceleration)!

    On Linux - you could launch only some Windows applications via Wine (mostly games but not all and there is plenty of compatibility issues)... The best approach would be start Windows applications in QEMU/KVM - it is almost ideal solution but... there is no 3D acceleration (without GPU passthrough), so many Windows apps and almost all games will not work in such Windows VM...

    I think that Linux community should try do the same what Microsoft is doing. WSL2 in short it is Linux VM with 3D acceleration (using mapping guest OpenGL/Vulkan -> host DirectX12), so Linux community should try create QEMU/KVM driver that will map Windows VM guest DirectX -> Linux host Vulkan. The problem is that probably without Microsoft involvement - it is very hard to implement such driver...

    Leave a comment:


  • Prescience500
    replied
    I definitely don't trust them. I have heard it said that they are shifting from being an OS company to a software company and they may be true. If so, that's the best possible outcome because it would mean that they no longer care about OS because they care more about what they can build on top of it and profit off of that. However, I strongly doubt they would give up their OS crown without a real fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • angrypie
    replied
    Originally posted by dreich View Post

    Why is free software any less resistant than proprietary in this context? Because you can't steal the code? Why bother stealing the code when you can steal the users?
    Windows is still 90% of desktops, slightly less on servers (70% or so). Microsoft Office is the "standard" office suite. They already have the upper hand and missed several opportunities of locking out non-Windows OSes from PCs, yet chose not to do so.

    So far we don't know what they truly want. What we know is that marketing bullshit like "building bridges" is obviously bullshit.

    Leave a comment:


  • dreich
    replied
    Originally posted by angrypie View Post
    How feasible is the "extinguish" part for free software though?
    Why is free software any more resistant than proprietary in this context? Because you can't steal the code? Why bother stealing the code when you can steal the users?
    Last edited by dreich; 17 September 2020, 10:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ezst036
    replied
    Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
    Considering how vibrant and independent the Linux ecosystem is, would they even be able to extinguish? I mean, many of the players like Red Hat/IBM, are in and of themselves powerful in their own right.
    This. Microsoft can only slow the growth of Linux, but it cannot be stopped.

    It's too late and Microsoft knows it. EEE is dead. Microsoft instead wants a piece of the pie.

    Microsoft's problem is that the road outward from Windows -------> Linux has been far too easy. So they built a road back inwards the other way. Windows <----------- Linux. Sure, people will use the highway because its clean and there aren't any traffic jams. But the highway out simply has more people on it and it always will.

    Leave a comment:


  • angrypie
    replied
    How feasible is the "extinguish" part for free software though? All of the hardware/software they killed in the 90s was proprietary and commercial. Even if they killed all of the companies who develop and support Linux, the code would still be around for anyone to pick it up again. And they can't just steal/relicense GPL code that was written by others.

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    Extinguish: I guess we can commend Microsoft that they stopped short of that.
    It's obviously less that they've stopped and more that they haven't yet gotten to the point where they have a large enough market share in the Linux space to actually pull it off.

    After all the things they pulled in the 90s I honestly don't think I'm going to genuinely trust them not to pull tricks like this until they actually do get broken up like they were supposed to back then when the U.S government really took them to task for it. I'm also obviously not alone in my total distrust of them in relation to any and all open standards.
    Last edited by L_A_G; 21 September 2020, 06:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
    Oh god, perhaps Xorg really is obsolete these days.
    i wonder when morons will learn that xorg is the developer of wayland

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by andre30correia View Post
    looks like wayland will fall and the peolpe will fork X and back to X
    what people? clueless clowns like you? ok, i'm waiting

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    quote from slides "gallium interface, translates to d3d12 apis, built on the shoulders of zink". now you know real reason for zink existence

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X