Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?
The Russian government recently made a surprising decision: to create a national operating system based on GNU/Linux. The motivation for this development is crystal clear: escaping the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Russia will gain two other huge advantages due to the shift: lower software expenditures and full access to the operating system's source code. The source code access will allow any discovered security flaws to be quickly fixed. Russia appears to be following China's lead. A few years ago, China also decided to shift to a Linux-based operating system known as Red Flag Linux. In this article, I will discuss some of the underlying issues that are causing countries, institutions, individuals, and governments to defect to GNU/Linux.
Quote: I know that I'll get some heat for this, but I will recommend it anyway: open source the entire Windows stack with the exception of the Windows kernel.
There were a lot of things I'd have liked to comment on in this article, but I will satisfy myself with just the above quote. I haven't seriously used any version of Windows as my day-to-day desktop now for about 10 years, however my probably incomplete understanding is that a huge cluster of major problems (especially those to do with security) actually lie in the kernel and how it operates. The writer is therefore recommending that these problems should not be opened to scrutiny and repair.
My current impression would be that if Microsoft were to do as the writer suggests in the above quote, it would be like decorating a pig-sty with curtains and bay-windows. If the writer is serious about opening the Windows code, then it all has to be opened, warts and all; you do not put a perfectly repaired mansion on top of a faulty foundation.
And now let's be serious......the way I see Redmond "politics and strategies", it just isn't going to happen. In any event, given a choice, I no longer even remotely consider Windows as an operating system on any computer I use.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
There were a lot of things I'd have liked to comment on in this article, but I will satisfy myself with just the above quote. I haven't seriously used any version of Windows as my day-to-day desktop now for about 10 years, however my probably incomplete understanding is that a huge cluster of major problems (especially those to do with security) actually lie in the kernel and how it operates. The writer is therefore recommending that these problems should not be opened to scrutiny and repair.
My current impression would be that if Microsoft were to do as the writer suggests in the above quote, it would be like decorating a pig-sty with curtains and bay-windows. If the writer is serious about opening the Windows code, then it all has to be opened, warts and all; you do not put a perfectly repaired mansion on top of a faulty foundation.
And now let's be serious......the way I see Redmond "politics and strategies", it just isn't going to happen. In any event, given a choice, I no longer even remotely consider Windows as an operating system on any computer I use.