Could Windows switch to the Linux kernel?

You guys might have read or heard about conjectures regarding Microsoft and Linux. Specifically, that Microsoft might, in the future, replace the windows kernel with something based on Linux. While I personally don't think this is going to happen, like, not at all, let's see why people might think that it's in the cards.

Join this channel to get access to a monthly patroncast and vote on the next topics I'll cover: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5UAwBUum7CPN5buc-_N1Fw/join

Support the channel on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thelinuxexperiment

Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP

My Gaming on Linux Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaw_Lz7oifDb-PZCAcZ07kw

Follow me on LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@TheLinuxExperiment:e

The Linux Experiment merch: get your goodies there! https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/the-linux-experiment

So first, Eric Raymond, one of the founders of the open source movement, wrote a blog post explaining that MS will definitely move to Linux as the base for Windows. I'll leave a link to this article in the description, but his arguments boil down to this:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8764

• PC sales are down and will keep decreasing as more people use tablets and phones. This means that Windows is less and less profitable, and will in time turn into a drag on their business.
• Windows subsystem for Linux allows to run unmodified Linux binaries on Windows without emulation.
• Proton and Wine allow people to run Windows software at near performance parity, and if it can run games, it can run anything.
• Microsoft is porting some of their software to Linux, and it can only make sense if they're trying to test their internal emulation layer.

Now, let's see why I think none of these arguments make sense:

• Financially, Windows isn't a burden to MS. It's free for the user, but not for the manufacturer. Hardware manufacturers that ship windows pay a fee to Microsoft, which is very lucrative. While it's not what they're focusing on right now, it's also a good source of income, and I don't see them just replacing the kernel because Windows doesn't make as much money as other things. The moment where PCs aren't needed in the workspace is far, far away. Manufacturers will keep selling workstations and laptops to companies for the foreseeable future, and this generates money for Microsoft. A lot of money, probably enough, without any other client, to keep developing their own kernel.

• WSL: WSL is the exact opposite of porting windows to use the Linux kernel. It's allowing Windows to use Linux software WITHOUT running the Linux kernel. I personally think this is the route Windows is going to take to cater to developers and sysadmins that prefer working on Linux.

• Wine and Proton: running games is easier th ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvYEC6CgqPw