Linux-Based Windows Makes Perfect Sense
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
The irony is I've spent more time mucking with this than doing a native Centos 8 install on the same hardware.
And some of us actually like working in windows, by the way.
Kernel engineering is challenging, precise and experience-based work and it's tricky to recruit and develop for those talents when your codebase is proprietary.
A large number of companies depend on Linux, and that creates a common interest in multiple areas - reliability, architecture support, security, and so on.
Under this suggestion, "Windows" as you experience it as a user might not change very much - but within the software stack, Linux would replace the existing proprietary kernel.
Easy. They replace those hundreds of expensive programmers who do nothing but maintain the Microsoft kernel with thousands of free programmers maintaining the Linux kernel.
Notice I said 'Microsoft kernel' rather than 'Windows kernel'. That was to distinguish the Windows 'look and feel' code from the underlying invisible OS code. Those hundreds of Windows (Desktop) programmers will remain.
It's very likely that you won't notice the difference between Windows with a Microsoft kernel and Windows with a Linux kernel.
WSL is certainly very attractive to me anyway. I’ve used it lots of times for coding.
But Opensource Windows could be the real thing.