If anyone can bundle and offer a distribution package of Linux, why doesn’t Microsoft jump on that bandwagon?
Microsoft Linux - think about it. They would ensure market share regardless of peoples OS preference by having two competing products, they could even develop a strategy to dominate the linux market through hardware preloads and exclusivity agreements, they could bundle Internet Explorer into it as a browser that can’t be removed-
Oh, wait…
Pretending this is a serious question, I´d say the people who are using “Linux” are usually the people who´d shun a microsoft product like the black plague.
about 1/2 the point of Linux (as mentioned) is to get away from Microsoft. About another 1/4 is to act all superior to the ‘poor blind sheep that still use windows’. I’m sure the last 1/4 have been put into some cult.
and 1/2 of this post is BS.
Microsoft could create a Linux distribution, but it doesn’t match their business model.
To distribute Linux under the GNU Public License (GPL) you must make your source code available so that the software is considered open". Anyone can view the code that you used to make your magic happen.
As of now, Microsoft does not release the source of Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Office, Windows itself - any of their software. To port all of this to Linux, they would need to open all that source up to developers and competitors around the world.
Now, they could distribute the kernel and and any modifications made to it; then distribute the applications as closed source binaries under a separate license, but the Linux advocates and users would shun such a strategy.
Also, the device drivers needed to make the same level of plug-n-play simplicity they have now would need to be included in the kernel, and the kernel source must be provided and the Linux community would get access to that source. Microsoft isn’t willing to do that.
Other vendors can distribute Linux because a) they make their money off support, b) they make hardware on which Linux runs and Linux is just an enabler of hardware sales or c) they, like Richard Stallman, believe software should be free.
Microsoft doesn’t make computers; they make software to run on computers. Bill Gates is so rich because of software sales - not support. If they went to making money on support, they would see a rapid decline in monetary value and the stockholders would be angry.
There’s more, but that scratches the surface. They can’t distribute Linux unless they are willing to open up their code and share. They can’t open up their code and share and maintain their dominance.