What's Redmond?

[Shadow Skill]

I hear the term "Redmond" being thrown around alot in the zdnet talkbacks (RSS feeds are wonderful things.) what or whom exactly is Redmond?

[superbnerd]

I like youe zeal for linux and angst towards MS. Your good for the community :D
Redmond is the city where MS is located. I believe its in Utah.

[Shadow Skill]

Well I never thought of it that way, I just hate it when someone tries to sell me and other people a sack of crap and pass it off as a precious gemstone ala M$, More Annoying Crapware. (hardware wise.), Alienware, and of course a world leader we all know and love. In short I do not appreciate being sold a bill of goods and having the snake oil salesmen look me dead in my eye and tell me that I should pay for it.

[LordMorgul]

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA

[superbnerd]

Ah yes, Washington. I guess thats SCO in Utah.

[LordMorgul]

It is easy to confuse the 'axes' of evil.

[Shadow Skill]

Bwahahahaha now Gates is swearing he can fix the adware, spyware and virus thing by releasing another application instead of gearing Longhorn towards real security.....Check out the article:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009-5393208.html

Damn it Bill all you need to do for Longhorn (I understnad that he [Bill] can't base it on a Unix core for Longhorn if he wants to put it out before 08, so I can let that go for now.) is use run as and I might think about buying it when I purchase a new machine. Start fixing the security holes so that by Longhorn reloaded you can easily and quickly make the transition to a real core. (Unix/linux) It really could not be that difficult to use such a core if the company has so many resources at your disposal, could it?

[DarkMasterMatt]

They ought to just use FreeBSD as the "core" of Windows sorta like Mac OS X. DOS is horribly outdated.

[crackers]

Win2000/XP is based on the NT kernel, which was based on VMS. Presumably the Wronghorn kernel will be based on that as well.

Let's hear it for user services running on Ring 0! GAK!

[Jman]

DOS is horribly outdated. Check your facts. XP is based of of 2000 (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnanchor/html/anch_winxp.asp), which does not use DOS. There only is an emulation mode.

Apparently even the Big G himself, Mr. Bill, has malware on his home PC. :eek:

Redmond better get busy!

[superbnerd]

They should, but they couldn't just abandon their creation. That would be an admitsion of defeat, and it would me they are using open source. Just about every program and driver would have to be rebuilt, and there wouldn't be any reason to use windows instead of any other Free Open Source OS such as the hugely popular linux.

[DarkMasterMatt]

Ah. I thought it was still based on DOS. My bad.

[Prometheus]

i believe 98 was the last windows version to be based off dos, well, maybe Milennium edition, but that was basically win 98 3rd edition.

[CrystalCowboy]

I hear the term "Redmond" being thrown around alot in the zdnet talkbacks (RSS feeds are wonderful things.) what or whom exactly is Redmond?
It means there must be a lot of fans of the Sim Redmond Band (http://www.simredmondband.com/) around.
http://www.simredmondband.com/3.jpg

[Shadow Skill]

Well if a company like Microsoft got behind a *nix core the OS would truly be a force to be reckoned with. And so what if you have to rebuild the drivers windows would STILL be able to provide true ease of use and productivity. It's not as if they would HAVE to use x11 for example they could always make their own. It would however mean that compatibility with other *nix systems for hardware would be all but assured.

[superbnerd]

But, why in the world would they want to use an open source kernel and not use the rest of the open source system? It would take them too long, and they would not be respected at all. They would end up like Lindow/Linspre, giving normal users root priveleges. Linux is not all that secure. The difference is that the distros' default settings are more secure and that most linux users actually have a clue about how there system works. I think most people have forgotten that linux is still the hackers platform. For us, by us.

[Shadow Skill]

I did not say that they wouldn't be X11 compatible Superb, however X11 compatibility doesn't mean they couldn't make theri own. There is no reason to assume that not using X11 would mean they would become Linspre or default people to root.

[07dcolem]

....not to change the subject or put linux users down (im really starting to like linux better than redmond)....but lets face it......windows may use old technology but were all forgetting the point here.......windows is much easier to upgrade and maintain for the average user......but linux is great if you know what your talking about......(or you come to the FedoraForum and ask people who know what their talking about). Linux is still my favorite......but microsoft does do a good job and it is stable, and great for the common user.....it really makes you think............................

[superbnerd]

My point is why the hell would they want to reinvent the whole FOSS community but not be apart of it or reap from its benefits (like free developemnt and support in some cases)? No *nix user (in thier right mind) would respect them. They would be the equivalent of a proprietary distro using a few FOSS tools (OS X). Why not just you whats alread available nad well tested. It would set them back about three years, and no one would (should) use it.

Essentially, Linspre tried to make a windows-like linux distro. Thats what they would be (re)creating.

Note1: Linspire is an excellent contributor to the FOSS community. Just check out nvu.com ;)
Note2: My problem is not with you. Its with MS and thier bad mouthing FOSS. Mucj like SCO, they should not be allowed to use FOSS once they have denounced it.

[Shadow Skill]

Maybe because you might have a better idea? Should M$ just not try to innovate anything just to make *nix users happy? I am thinking of current windows users not us. There are a few things windows does better than Linux (Mostly because of hardware support.) They have also managed to makr gui config tools work 99% of the time unlike with *nix distros. You also have to keep in mind that if they decided to make their own gui system as an alternative to x11 they already have an existing GUI with the current incarnation of windows as well as x11 so this set back might not be as large as you want me to believe.

[superbnerd]

I want to help all computer users. Thats why I am active in the FOSS community, but the same case was brought against SCO, MS's rpupet. They declared the gpl invalid yet were still distrobuting linux. They were held up in court because of it.

It wouldn't really help windows users anyway, becuase *nix systems generally need knowledgeable administrators. MS could try to change that, but we all know they would patent and licence thier modifications under a diferent licence so only they would have the benefit. MS competes to dominate. FOSS competes to improve ;)