That is an independent FOSS project to my knowledge.
> Knowing Microsoft, it will be both.
Possible. But then when they are content with both the kernel and the userspace, why should they switch at all? The must be wanting to replace some maintenance burden, otherwise they won't do it.
> The must be wanting to replace some maintenance burden
I'm sure they'd love to drop Windows as-is, certainly on the desktop, and let others have that burden (moving Gamers to a walled garden via XBox, let Apple and Linux have all the hardware and user support issues on desktops/laptops and phones, etc.), but momentum and backwards compatibility are massive problems and even ignoring those dropping Windows would just be too embarrassing.
Windows isn't the cash-cow it once was, it might even be a cost depending on how you massage the figures, the bread-winners for MS are currently: Azure, SQL Server, and Office. Office itself is part of the collection of things that would hold back a desktop OS exit for MS: there isn't a full port for any other OS and the online version is not feature-complete.
Sure, but developing both Win32/Linux and GNU/NT, means they would not get rid of anything. They need to keep the userspace API, so maybe they would favor Win32/Linux over GNU/NT. But then why should they get rid of the kernel, which is the least of their problems, isn't held back by API compatibility, is widely praised for its quality and supports a lot of things, which userspace doesn't. (fork, symlinks, etc.) What is the benefit of Win32/Linux over Win32/NT for Microsoft?
The alternative doesn't make sense either. There is no point in integrating their kernel into a different OS, when the result only is a different flavor of that OS. Why should anyone use GNU/NT over GNU/Linux, when it's still incompatible with all Windows software?
They could massively invest into Wine or an alternative and maybe also implement a shim for kernel modules. Or there could open-source Win32 and wait for it to merge with Wine, so that Win32/Linux becomes viable. Lastly they could spin off Windows OS into its own company and it would become just one of their targets for their software. This would likely also improve Windows, as the OS' main problem is forcing ads and bloatware into it. But why would Microsoft allow that?
-----
Arguable GNU/NT already exists with MSYS2/Cygwin. What they are missing is an OS package manager, integration into the user/process/permission system, a registry shim and a way to force random program installers to install into the FHS.
Agreed. As I said, in the words immediately after those you quoted:
> but momentum and backwards compatibility are massive problems
That, and loss of face.
> Lastly they could spin off Windows OS into its own company and it would become just one of their targets for their software.
That is an option that hadn't occurred to me, and it is closer to what I was meaning with “drop Windows as-is” then “drop parts of windows and replace with GNU or Linux”: drop windows desktop full-stop, concentrate on milking Azure platform income, Office subscriptions, and SQL Server licenses. I wouldn't envisage they'd drop everything, at least not immediately, as keeping a server subset alive to support more minor products like Exchange might be more practical than quickly porting them.
> This would likely also improve Windows, as the OS' main problem is forcing ads and bloatware into it. But why would Microsoft allow that?
Not quite sure what you are meaning there, but wrt ads and bloatware that boat has already sailed and MS is actively doing it, not just allowing it.
> Not quite sure what you are meaning there, but wrt ads and bloatware that boat has already sailed and MS is actively doing it, not just allowing it.
Exactly the opposite. A standalone Windows company wouldn't have a reason to force Copilot, Cortana, a Microsoft account, etc., since their only objective is to develop an OS. "But why would Microsoft allow that?" = "Why would give up that power over the OS?"
> That, and loss of face.
Right now. But when people got used to the OS being shitty, nobody would be sad if it's gone. Maybe that's the plot with Windows 11 and why they already partially have given up with backwards compatibility. :-)
> You are right, Git for Windows is by random people.
In addition Git for Windows and MSYS2 are different projects, but Git for Windows ships a strapped down version of MSYS2, which is a bit annoying once you want to use anything else, as now you have two (incompatible) versions of MSYS2 around. I would like if they would backport Git for Windows into MSYS2 proper.
That is an independent FOSS project to my knowledge.
> Knowing Microsoft, it will be both.
Possible. But then when they are content with both the kernel and the userspace, why should they switch at all? The must be wanting to replace some maintenance burden, otherwise they won't do it.