Jason Sidabras

So I was going to take my time and really get into the gory details of my perfect OS and where Microsoft should be going, but with this published news I figured I will write this blog so I don’t end up looking like the last guy on earth to think through this. It seems I have a tendency to think of really great ideas about two or three weeks before they are out for consumers: laser computer mice is one such example. But I digress. Here are my thoughts about the future of Operating Systems

One word: Virtualization

As the above link mentions the unholy union of Microsoft and Novell is going to pay off. (OT:What did apple get from their unholy union: Is the Intel switch a direct consequence of that?)

“Microsoft Windows Server 2000/2003/XP to run unmodified in Xen virtual environments on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 from Novell, operating on Intel-based server platforms featuring Intel Virtualization Technology.”

Perfect. An operating system will the stability of linux able to run a virtual host of a popular operating system that needs to be wiped clean every 6 months. What better way to do this then by virtualization. At least I think so. Does this mean that MS is embracing linux, short answer yes. They made Novell their testing whore. Anyone should be able to get MS running on Xen with a brand new Intel Machine. The fact that Novell comes out and brags that they are going to be doing it regularly shows that MS has given their blessing. Expect RedHat to have it in Enterprise Linux 5, which is all about the Xen support. Something Suse has in v.10.

Vista

Now as of late I have been discussing with friends about the rush to get Vista out and how it doesn’t have enough features to warrant someone to go out and buy a new computer. Shamefully there are a lot of dumber people out there who feel that a new OS means it’s worth going out and getting a brand new computer to run. Because Vista is actually doing it’s job and spurring computer sales

Now most of the people I know would not go out and buy the newest MS OS just because it’s there. We know that a new OS shouldn’t have to require new hardware just to run. That’s what peripherals are for. But why would MS come out with an OS that will be replaced in 2009? Especially with XP just getting to it’s prime-as in most stable. The thought first and foremost is to get an OS out the same time Apple is getting an OS out. And require people to upgrade their pc’s. Also Vista does not support (supposedly) to run on the Intel Macs so they basically just want you to buy a new computer. Gearing up for Vienna which will require a new computer (speculative) not ask for a new computer. Given 2 years everyone (typical people) will be running a computer with Virtualization technology.

Does the name Vista give a clue on what they are thinking? Vista’s definition yields:

A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees.

Are we getting into a clearing of actually having a great OS from MS? Maybe. With Vienna maybe we will have the OS that is needed to blow us out of the water and give us that “wow” feeling the commercials are talking about. Until then people will make due with an XP upgrade.

Gates came out with this statement:

Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

Pretty bold with such a track record. But one prediction I have is that Vista isn’t “hacker-proof” it’s 0-day fix favorable. With the complete rewrite there are many additional tools that developers have come up with over the past 10 years (since NT complete rewrite) that makes managing code easier. If MS can keep up with 0-day vulnerabilities at a significantly faster rate than they can with XP then, Vista is a success. And then it is just smooth sailing until Vienna.

My Operating System

Running title: “How I would fix MS”. In the time between Windows 2000 and Vista, Apple has made two dramatic changes: OS X and “The Switch”. Although Apple has 10% of the market share they are a good company to test the way developers handle a complete rewrite. I think MS should study the process, fix the holes and do it themselves. It’s time to break backwards-compatibility: sort of.

I say sort of because I expect virtualization of previous OS’s to play a huge part in this new OS. Two things will come of this complete rewrite. You MUST upgrade your computer for the 30x’s (guess) improvement of running Intel Hardware Virtualization over some software virtualization. Your old programs will run dog slow on an old machine, but with an upgrade you can’t tell the difference between old programs and new ones. This has been done before with MS-DOS programs. CMD, is only there as legacy right now. The other option is not to support WindowsXP programs on older machines. Guaranteeing an upgrade.

So we have a complete re-write, based off of FreeBSD. We can call the fork Dembski and support the OpenSource movement from it. Don’t support the proprietary stuff or put it online, like the Aero interface. Xen support will get the WindowsXP running in the background. With the correct hooks you should be able to run a WindowsXP program and have it look like a normal running program. Jail/chroot the whole thing. With the FreeBSD license, although not preferred, you can do blob binaries for drivers. But MS should encourage OpenSource Binaries stating some reasons like Apples wireless bugs.

Doing that you have opened up a whole new era for MS. You can support only the things you want. (i.e. WinFS only), you can open up the much needed NTFS drivers. Support Xorg layers. Full GCC support and everything. Here’s the kicker: piracy

Apple doesn’t have much piracy issues. I know I will be purchasing the next version of OS X soon after it comes out. Why do I choose to support it? Because it is interesting and semi-respectable. With the above mention people could run Dembski but not have the Aero interface. One problem solved for piracy. Have Dembski come with a EULA that allows dmesg’s and other important information be sent back to MS on a regular basis. Nothing privacy shattering, just plain guts and free bug reports. Second, build in the official kernel a hook that if the copy is not a genuine copy you get background ads. This can easily be done today by using the Active Desktop. Have a kernel hook read email for keywords and use searches for keywords. There you have an added revenue stream that will probably make more money than buying a copy outright.

Wrapup

I know none of this will happen. MS will continue to pump out lack-luster product and people will eat it up. Support of the old OS’s can continue for a few years. Giving time for developers to change over. Also from Apple’s mistakes MS can triumph. The key for the survival of the switch is to study Apple’s mistakes and correct them. Dual booting is no longer an option/problem with the virtualization. Systems are inherently safer with sudo, jail and *BSD. Free bug reports and revenue through piracy. Stability from *BSD and a license to do what you want.

All adds up to win-win for MS. Only if this was a perfect world and I was CEO of every company.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.