I get the feeling MS is heading towards Windows running on a MS Linux kernel at some point.
What would be the point? The NT kernel has a newer architecture than the Linux kernel and build upon Dave Cutler's experience with VMS (which could already benefit from learning from Unix).
Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure.
They will probably end up taking an Apple-like approach. Open bits where it is strategic and keep some bits closed to sell Windows licenses. It 'only' took a new CEO to do the rational thing.
"newer architecture" doesn't really mean much. Microsoft have to maintain a more rigid overall structure because they are committed to third-party binary compatibility wrt drivers and such. As a result, major architectural shifts in things like networking or graphics (XP -> Vista) cause a lot of pain.
It's a trade-off. Linux looks floppy architecturally because it can afford to be.
"Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure."
If you're interested in an open-source NT kernel, you might be interested in ReactOS. Although their target comprises development of the entire OS, their main task was the NT kernel and "the glue" with existing parts of Win32 sub-system developed by Wine.
What would be the point? The NT kernel has a newer architecture than the Linux kernel and build upon Dave Cutler's experience with VMS (which could already benefit from learning from Unix).
Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure.
They will probably end up taking an Apple-like approach. Open bits where it is strategic and keep some bits closed to sell Windows licenses. It 'only' took a new CEO to do the rational thing.