SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Has no one seen this yet? Don't cross the streams!
Earlier today, we wrote that Microsoft was going to add some big new features to the Windows Subsystem for Linux, including native support for Docker containers. It turns out that that ain't the half of it.
Not even half.
All is changing with Windows Subsystem for Linux 2. Instead of emulating the Linux kernel APIs on the NT kernel, WSL 2 is going to run a full Linux kernel in a lightweight virtual machine. This kernel will be trimmed down and tailored to this particular use case, with stripped-down hardware support (since it will defer to the host Windows OS for that) and faster booting.
The Linux kernel is GPLed open source; the GPL license requires that any modifications made to the code must be published and made available under the GPL license. Microsoft will duly comply with this, publishing the patches and modifications it makes to the kernel. WSL 2 will also use a similar split as the current WSL does: the kernel component will be shipped with Windows while "personalities" as provided by the various Linux distributions can be installed from the Microsoft Store.
To quote Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this."
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:33PM (9 children)
You said it better than I could. Windows only at work, where I'm not responsible for maintaining it.
If I want Linux, I want real Linux.
I don't want to develop against "weasel" (WSL / WSL2) Linux. I don't want to one day find that it doesn't actually run in production on real Linux because all testing was done on weasel.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
BTW, back when Microsoft licensed Java, remember that? They then "extended" Java so developers would use the extended APIs, but under the "java" package name, only to find out later that their Java programs didn't run on anything non-Windows. This was in clear violation of the black-letters of the paper contract. Sun sued. Won $1.2 Billion. Then .NET / C# was born, because Java and how its ecosystem worked was just too valuable not to have on Windows. Point: why wouldn't Microsoft sneak in ugly things like this with weasel Linux? Because they're such good guys?
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:41PM
There's only one real Linu: Microsoft Windows Linux 11.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheFool on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:43PM (4 children)
I think it's pretty likely that Microsoft isn't targeting what you want. They are targeting what your employer wants - because your employer has a lot more money and will pay enterprise licensing costs.
That said, your employer cares more about the apps and (sometimes) the OS features. They don't care much about the kernel. And wouldn't it be nice for MS if they never had to pay a kernel dev again, but instead got the majority of the work by leeching off of other peoples' goodwill?
I think you're likely to see a Linux distro owned by Microsoft within 10 years or so. Either they will buy one or they will just make one and slowly introduce it through various weasels. And they'll market it to your employer, not you. That would be the "extend" bit, I think.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Revek on Tuesday May 07 2019, @03:03PM (3 children)
Except, my employer does not have to pay licensing for any of his Linux products. He pays me to maintain them. There are two machines with several instances running on them. Its a mixture of CentOS and Ubuntu. He will have trouble understanding why he needs to pay Microsoft for what he now get at no added cost.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by TheFool on Tuesday May 07 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)
The argument is usually:
(Score: 4, Funny) by TheFool on Tuesday May 07 2019, @04:37PM
Oof, seems I can't close my tags either. Rough day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:57PM
Because Microsoft will make it cheaper for them to pay Microsoft and get support for it than what they pay you. Then you're out of a job.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday May 07 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
Assuming that by "real Linux" you mean "Linux on the bare metal": That's practical for many but not for all.
First, someone might be stuck with hardware that runs Linux poorly. One example is an ASUS Transformer Book T100TA [debian.org], where suspend, screen backlight control, Bluetooth, and the camera are all broken, and networking requires proprietary drivers so you may have to buy a USB NIC to break the Catch-22.
Second, someone might need to run Windows-only applications that fail in Wine but possess only a Windows license that forbids use in a virtual machine. Last I checked, the OEM Windows license that came with a PC allowed only bare metal use, not use in a VM (source [vmware.com]), and retail Windows Pro licenses cost $200. Or is there a way to seamlessly synchronize web browser, office suite, and media playing sessions across a dual boot, so that I can reboot and come back from the restroom to find all the same things open in the other OS?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @04:36PM
I'm not unhappy with Linux on a beefy VM. As long as it doesn't interfere with my work. And that's the bottom line.
In fact the beefy VM may be a lot better as I think about it. I am not responsible for maintaining the hardware. I may never even see the hardware. I can google for the type of processor I'm running on and have my eyes pop out at how many thousands of dollars that chip costs. But I also have two decent physical servers in my office. The most recent was about $11,000 -- and about half of that is the Windows OS -- yes really. Hyper-V (boo!). But I can spin up Linux VMs just fine and so have little to complain about.
I do run some Windows in a VM -- but Windows Server 2012 VMs. Because the Windows 2012 Server Data Center Edition (in my office) allows me to (is licensed to) create unlimited Windows 2012 Server VMs and activate them. That is not a desktop OS. But it runs everything I need just fine.
I hadn't really thought about bare metal. But now that I do, I think VMs offer WAY more flexibility.
Here is the most amusing thing. Since I am a Java developer, using Eclipse, and mostly open source apps (gimp, inkscape, libreoffice etc), I don't have much need of any Windows-Only apps. But those I do have (Office, Outlook, Skype, etc) are installed and maintained on my desktop by the IT department. I don't have to deal with keeping them running.
If I need to run a different Windows Server OS, that can be done. Install it. Put in the request. CIT will come along and activate it for me.
If I need to virtualize a Windows Desktop OS, that can also be done. An extra few hoops to jump through in putting in the paperwork. I did it years ago, but no more. It's easier to just use a Windows Server OS, or a Linux GUI or a Linux sans GUI.
Within my organization, I see everything warming up to open source a lot now. It's like everyone is catching up to where I was fifteen years ago.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday May 08 2019, @11:16AM
I do think it's part of the EEE strategy, really. Linux on the desktop is extremely rare with casual household computer users but extremely common with software engineers. Microsoft is now trying to offer a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too option to software engineers, a way to access all of the Windows-compatible software you want (including games) and the Linux development software and development environment you like too.
The reason this is bad is that some portion of the software engineers doing their day job from Linux also contribute to the Linux ecosystem. If they're working in WSL that becomes less attractive, because instead of saying, "I want to do XYZ but I can't right now because it's only on Windows and I'm running $FAVORITELINUXDISTRO. I'll help build an equivalent that works on Linux." they can say, "I want to do XYZ, and it only works on Windows. I'm on Windows, I'll use it."
This isn't as unethical as Microsoft's J++ attempt to hijack Java or the intentional web standards incompatibility in most versions of Internet Explorer, but it's still a way to chip away at the Linux desktop ecosystem.