Decisions and Impacts: Microsoft's Choice of Kernel Over Linux

Understanding why Microsoft chose to use the Windows NT kernel instead of adopting the Linux kernel is crucial for comprehending the evolution of operating systems and the influence of historical choices on modern software.

Historical Background of Windows and Linux

The decision by Microsoft to opt for its own kernel rather than using the Linux kernel in the development of the Windows operating system has roots deeply embedded in the historical context of operating system development. This choice was not just a matter of technical decisions, but also had significant implications for the future of Microsoft's operating systems and its overall strategic direction.

The Birth of Windows and Limitations

Back in the early days, Windows was a relatively primitive operating system, particularly at the kernel level, tailored for PCs that lacked the capability to support more sophisticated operating systems. This was before the widespread adoption of Unix-like systems such as Xenix, which was eventually scaled down to a level that made it less functional compared to MS-DOS on the hardware of the time.

The Need for a New OS

As more powerful PCs entered the market, it became evident that a new operating system was necessary to fully utilize their capabilities. However, the landscape during this period did not yet include the Linux kernel, which was a product of the late 1990s. In response, Microsoft aligned with IBM to develop OS/2, but this partnership was fraught with conflicts and challenges.

Decision to Modernize: The Role of Dave Cutler

Ultimately, Microsoft made the decision to take advantage of the expertise of Dave Cutler to modernize Windows rather than continue its efforts with OS/2. Cutler, known for his expertise in operating systems, was not a fan of the Unix philosophy, and his influence on the development of the Windows NT kernel was significant. This choice set the path for the development of a new Windows kernel that would eventually become the backbone of Windows NT, which would later evolve into the modern Windows operating system we know today.

Comparison Between Windows NT and Linux Kernels

The Windows NT kernel is notably older and incompatible with the Linux kernel. This historical precedent and the technological differences between the two operating systems have led to a situation where a switch to the Linux kernel would not only be unnecessary but perhaps even counterproductive.

Control and Limitations: Microsoft's Approach

One of the primary reasons for Microsoft's continued investment in its own kernel is the desire to maintain control over the operating system. Unlike Linux, which is a community-driven project and can be modified and extended by a vast array of developers, Microsoft's approach is more rigid. The company does not permit users to work around inherent shortcomings or misfeatures in the system. In many cases, the only allowable mitigations are within the boundaries of what Microsoft allows, and even then, users cannot fully customize the system as they please.

The Argument Against Changing Kernels

Some argue that changing the kernel would not significantly impact Microsoft, likening it to asking how Apple would be affected if it started using Android. The analogy holds that a fundamental change in the kernel would fundamentally transform the nature of the operating system and its ecosystem, much like a complete overhaul of Apple's identity if it were to switch to Android. Therefore, from this perspective, there is little reason to change the kernel from a strategic standpoint.

Conclusion

In summary, Microsoft's choice to use its own kernel over Linux was a strategic decision shaped by historical circumstances and a desire for control. The compatibility and age of the Windows NT kernel, along with the control mechanisms in place, have made the switch to another kernel unnecessary and impractical. Understanding these factors provides insight into the nuances of operating system design and the influence of historical and ideological decisions on the future development of software giants like Microsoft.