Well Joe,using Linux is an alternative to Windows 8 but it's not the solution. true,most versions of Linux do have a start menu,which is a step up from Windows 8 CP.
Actually, Android itself, which is running on half of the world's consumer smart phones, is a Linux-based operating system. For Microsoft, at least, the worst possible nightmare did happen. It was only a few years ago that Microsoft's Steve Ballmer claimed, rather unusually, in a press interview, that portions of Linux violated Microsoft's intellectual property rights. This was before the rise of Android. Linux has become mainstream, but the fact has been lost on most consumers. Most tablets, slates, and smart phones are designed for consumer-use only and not production or productivity. What you are witnessing with Windows 8 CP, in my opinion, is an attempt by Microsoft to catch up. For years, Microsoft fans claimed that Linux would never go anywhere - that it would never be able to compete as a desktop operating system. For the most part, those people were right, at least about the desktop operating system. Linux-based phones still use console commands for debugging and a touch-based user interface for handling apps and phone calls. It was only a matter of time until a major player in IT started funding the development of Linux-based products and service for the consumer market. Before that, Linux was always used as a nearly cost-free alternative to Windows Server and IIS. What we are witnessing today, where Microsoft is competing, are UNIX and Linux-based systems competing directly with Microsoft. When Playstation 3 first launched, it touted the capability of allowing you to install a separate OS. The 'Other OS' option was designed specifically for Linux installs. It was only removed when modders started using the feature to bypass DRM on games. Mac OS itself is UNIX derivative. All you have to do is look at the networking options in the OS and you will see what was done here. It is heavily influenced by UNIX technology.
The last few years have seen Microsoft implement a layered security model into their systems that resembles the Linux and UNIX multi-user rights management that has been present in Linux operating systems for decades. This means permissions are based on user privileges, user groups, and file/folder read/write/executable permissions. In this area, Microsoft beefed up Windows security with NT by directly incorporating certain concepts that were found in server-based operating systems.
Windows shows its BSD heritage - fak3r There is nothing amazing about any of this. It would be great to see cross-compatibility between these types of systems. The main issue of contention is closed-source technology versus open-source. Microsoft has for decades argued that making its proprietary source code open to the public would introduce too many exploits. However, they continue to share portions of the source code with Ivy League universities, research center, and other places in extremely secure environments. It is very possible that they benefit from this information sharing to some degree. With Linux-based systems, on the other hand, it was only recently that rumors started swelling that Google will make Android closed source. As of right now, however, the Android Open Source Project initiative has made sure that is just a rumor.
Oracle suit outs Google's closed source Android tactics ? The Register The difference between open source and closed source development in operating system software can be felt the most as soon as a large amount of investment capital and human resources begins to go into the development of the operating system. Whereas proprietary closed source advocates have argued that keeping the source code away from the public prevents exploits, open source advocates will tell you that they are able to identify exploits more readily, and in fact, patch software more quickly. The main problem with an open source Microsoft Windows would be that a highly skilled programmer with the same beliefs as Andrea Borman would be able to make sure Windows 8 acted just the way she wanted - without necessarily paying anything extra for it.
Take a look at most software outside of operating systems, and you will find that it is proprietary software that is pre-compiled for Microsoft Windows. However, when you look at Linux-based server software, almost all of it, including the GNU utilities, is open source. Companies that make closed source software for Linux benefit from the open source platform but keep their source code close to them so that competitors can't sell the same product. When Red Hat Linux started charging for enterprise-level support and updates, a group of programmers started working on an operating system that now dominates the web hosting market. Dubbed CentOS - this operating system is entirely a Red Hat Linux clone. The same support updates are thrown into CentOS free of charge, and all Red Hat branding has simply been removed. It is updated regularly and there is nothing the people at Red Hat can really do about it. CentOS is used, reliably, all over the Internet.
So when looking a this issue, you have some points. The day that Microsoft dreaded has surely come. Linux is very mainstream. There are more Smart Phones in North America sitting in warehouses than their are human beings. Half of them are running Linux-based operating systems.
So, Andrea, you have a point. Fanboys are never going to like your point, and repeating it ad-nauseum doesn't lend credibility to it. I would urge you not to continue to call for government intervention and re-use the same talking points about human rights. Eventually we will have to start flagging your account with infraction points for repetition on this issue.
But you do have a point. There is a corporation, whose chairman wiped out malaria, with $60 billion dollars in cash reserves playing catch up to Linux and open source operating systems.