On 14 March 2018, Microsoft announced that it was open sourcing its Azure Service Fabric.
The Azure Service Fabric is a distributed application platform which aids in deploying microservices, highly available applications and containers on the Azure cloud (someone else's, in this case, Microsoft, servers) platform.
The announcement (via a blog post from the Microsoft Service Fabric Team) states:
At this point we have the Service Fabric repo up on GitHub with Linux build and test tools, which means you can clone the repo, build Service Fabric for Linux, run basic tests, open issues, and submit pull requests. We're working hard to get the Windows build environment migrated over as well, along with a complete CI environment.
[...] For now, you can compile and test Service Fabric for Linux, everything from the low-level clustering and federation layers all the way up to process and container activation. We are also opening it up for contributions, albeit at a limited pace as we work on moving everything out into the open.
The github repo main page gives current status on the open sourcing process:
Quick look at our current status
- Service Fabric build tools for Linux
- Basic tests for Linux builds available
- Container image with build tools available to run builds
Currently in progress
- Build tools for Windows
- Improve dependency consumption process
- Automated CI environment
- Migrate complete test infrastructure
Clearly this is an attempt by Microsoft to engage developers in using/developing applications/containers/microservices for the Azure cloud. From the standpoint of getting more folks involved in development of the platform, It's probably not a bad idea for them as they attempt to increase market share.
It still remains to be seen how receptive Microsoft will be to feature additions and bug fixes and whether or not they will allow non-MS blessed changes to actually run on Azure.
So what's the upside (if any) here for Soylentils?
Does this action by Microsoft make those of you who use (and/or consider using) other cloud (AWS/Google/etc.) platforms for PaaS, containers, microservices, etc. more interested in using the Azure platform?
Are there any advantages to this over tools available from other cloud providers? Is Microsoft just playing catch up?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 16 2018, @01:24PM (4 children)
Gulag can lick my hairy, dingleberried taint. The rates aren't market competitive, the interface is "material design" i.e what paypal did to its perfect dashboard. You can't do certain things without getting your account suspended and your data destroyed.
All in all, would not use any of them. They all offer free student credits, so I just register to free Indian universities and cycle emails.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @05:29PM (3 children)
"I use Azure"
a pox on your house, sir! a pox!
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday March 16 2018, @06:30PM (2 children)
No need for the imprecations, he is already sorely afflicted. Not open sores, but festering sores.
(Score: 2) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 16 2018, @11:04PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:35AM
Pustules of any variety are not good news, a sign that you ought to change to a more sanitary operating system. Whether spread by congress, intercourse, registry hacking, or autoplay, any operating system that gives you sores of any kind is bad news, kind of like the "sporting girls" of old. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iiJMgUlIR8 [youtube.com] "Pills of White Mercury", even if you're not syphylitic, they'll do you good by loosening your bowels.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Gaaark on Friday March 16 2018, @04:20PM (15 children)
Yeah, let's fix Microsoft's problems and make them richer!
That would be smart!
Fuck Microsoft. Fuck Microsoft. Fuck Microsoft.
Say it with me: fuck Microsoft!
Fuck Microsoft.
So say we all.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @05:31PM (5 children)
You don't know what an "MIT license" is, do you?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday March 16 2018, @11:26PM (4 children)
You read the fecking article?!?!?
I didnt. So suck me. Errrr...sue me.
No. Just suck me.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:47PM (3 children)
You like to fuck and you like to get sucked. I can tell you're really enjoying the whole "being a dick" thing.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:44PM (2 children)
Ah!
Ahhh!
So. Funny!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:55PM (1 child)
So pathetic. You don't like to read and you don't like to think.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:36AM
Oh god! Stop!
You're hilarious!
You're the George Carlin of Soylentnews.
*Applause*
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday March 16 2018, @06:40PM (8 children)
It's worse than that. M$ uses GNU/Linux and OSS tools as bait to attract patent trolls. Software can be patented and there are many empty shell companies that, armed with a software patent or two, go after targets they think they can push over with the threat of litigation or with minimal litigation. If one fights and wins, the shell company pops like a bubble and disappears leaving the defense with a pyrrhic victory because of the legal bills.
M$ feeds these shell companies. When they come sniffing around Azure, M$ offers to offload their own software patents by selling one or more to the patent troll with strings attached. The strings are that M$ cannot be sued for said software patents. That leave the shell company to turn against M$ competitors in order to have any chance of recovering their costs. So M$ unloads dying software patents [techrights.org] before they lose all value at the same time they can sic a shell company on M$ competitors causing trouble and expense for real OSS-friendly companies. It's a twofer.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday March 16 2018, @06:45PM (7 children)
Software can be patented in the US, not in most other parts of the world. It seems that the editing tool a word.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @09:53PM (6 children)
To be clear, software that will run on a general-purpose machine is NOT patentable in USA.
USAian courts have been striking down, left and right, patents of this sort that had been previously issued.
The proper imaginary property protection for general-purpose software is COPYRIGHT.
TechRights.org has been covering this quite thoroughly as its primary topic for several years.
Now, software that is part of a dedicated system is a different matter.
The system, with the software as a component, can be patented.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:36AM (5 children)
The direction that the US is heading is that software cannot be patented, but as far as I have read no distinction is made between general purpose and dedicated system software. Business methods and formulas/algorithms are also patentable in the US. So, most businesses are still acting as if it all is patentable and fighting it out in the courts. Your source, Roy's posts, are a little hard for me to follow due to how they jump around a bit even inside one and the same post. However, they are authoritative on the topic.
I only follow the US news in that area as closely as the news in India, for somewhat similar reasons.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:55AM (4 children)
You linked to TechRights but, apparently, you've missed what they've been saying FOR YEARS.
In effect, the Alice [wikipedia.org] case heard by SCOTUS in 2014 said that adding "with a computer" does NOT make an old idea patentable.
Again: The proper imaginary property protection for general-purpose software is COPYRIGHT.
.
as far as I have read[,] no distinction is made between general purpose and dedicated system software
You've lost focus and are dwelling on minutia.
In order for a pirated copy of the software/firmware to be useful, you'd first have to duplicate the purpose-designed hardware on which it runs.
THAT is already covered by patent law.
Again: If you're worried about software pirates, COPYRIGHT your code.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:45AM (2 children)
You've lost focus and are dwelling on minutia.
A side effect of, among other things, reading too many of the cases in the recent past. Yes, we agree that software is covered by copyright, and copyright only not patents. Even the US courts are starting to say so as well.
However, getting assholes like the heads of M$ and most other big businesses in the US to accept the change is slow in coming. Since you're more up on the situation in the US, how well is the USPTO [uspto.gov] complying with the return to copyright-only for software? Are they granting software patents still? Have they revoked existing software patents or are they just waiting for the victims to fight trolls in court?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:41PM
With the courts slapping these things down time and again, they will only issue new software patents if they are in the mood to look foolish.
Patent trolls especially are affected.
They now know that pressing a software patent case will not only have them losing the case, the court will, in no uncertain terms, declare the patent on the software to be invalid.
So, they not only wasted money on the patent application, they subsequently pissed away more money on lawyers.
...then got publicly slapped around by the judge(s).
...and the patent office gets to keep the application fee whether they approve that claim or not.
There's no monetary advantage to USPTO to *approve* an application.
In fact, ISTM that the faster they **reject** applications, the better their monetary efficiency becomes.
Long-term, it would also result in fewer crappy applications.
M$ and most other big businesses
Yeah. Entities that have lots of money and no shame are outliers in this.
In the end, the result will look the same WRT the verdict--but in the meantime, they can make a little guy's life miserable.
Isn't Capitalism wonderful?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @02:41AM
Those courts who are still friendly to patent trolls and especially software patent trolls, like the Eastern District of Texas, are driving away businesses from those regions.
TXED Courts Are Causing Businesses to Leave the District, Notably For Fear That Having Any Operations Based There is a Legal Liability [techrights.org]
TC Heartland [eff.org] made court shopping unconstitutional, so that court is getting many fewer cases filed there for starters.
...then, as TechRights says
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:53PM
> You've lost focus and are dwelling on minutia.
"You've lost focus and are dwelling on a minutia" would be more grammatical. It's "minutia" when there's one, or "minutiae" when there are more than one.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @10:06PM
All of the Open Source stuff that I have will do useful things without paying any money for anything.
MSFT created the term "open core".
That uses the word "open" in a deceptive way.
It means that, for -part- of the required software, you are able to read the source code.
In order to make that stuff do anything useful, however, you have to give MSFT some money to use something else of theirs which is NOT open.
In this case, that something is Azure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 16 2018, @11:33PM (4 children)
This was the part I'd hoped folks would be discussing, but apparently few read the second page of TFS either.
It's clearly a maneuver by MS to increase the visibility and usefulness of their Azure platform. Does it matter? How do these tools stack up against the other cloud providers?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:54AM (1 child)
Oh you Microsoft shills are so clever these days. What is with the higher quality shilling? Have they started hiring from overseas now?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:54AM
I have no interest in helping or harming Microsoft.
I got an email about this the other day and wondered it anyone who actually used Azure had any thoughts about the value of such a move and, contrariwise, what sorts of similar tools are available for other cloud platforms.
Those are reasonable questions, no? I don't really give a rat's ass whether anyone uses any Microsoft products.
Personally, I use FOSS and non-commercial products as much as possible.
Do you use similar tools on other cloud platforms? If so, what has your experience been with them? Do they simplify deployment of containers/services/highly available apps? Are they straightforward to integrate with your applications, or do you need to design with such functionality in mind?
Or are you just looking to be obnoxious rather than add something of value to the discussion?
Either way, it's fine with me. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:53PM (1 child)
In the announcement, Microsoft call this software their "secret sauce for large scale distributed applications." They've released it under a permissive license. They say that it's already in use "outside of Microsoft," which I take to mean outside of the Azure service. Couldn't any cloud service provider now adopt Azure Service Fabric? Then when someone creates a new cloud application, even if they intend to have that other provider host it initially, they might design it to use Azure Service Fabric, so they would have the option of readily moving it to Azure if that became advantageous. Microsoft isn't the biggest CSP, Amazon Web Services is. Enabling users to move freely between providers could be in Microsoft's interest: it has more customers to gain than it has to lose.
Microsoft isn't just a CSP: it sells the Windows operating system too. Google Compute Engine didn't initially offer Windows (it does now). By releasing Azure Service Fabric, Microsoft disincentivizes the development of competing frameworks in which Windows is excluded or is an afterthought. So long as Microsoft guides the development of Azure Service Fabric, I expect Windows to have first-class support. If Azure Service Fabric is forked, the fork will start out having support for Windows.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @01:00AM
Interesting points. Which touch upon a couple of things I was curious about. I don't use cloud instances (I did get a free one from Amazon last year to do some external testing on a new firewall I'd installed) and have no use for application services or containerized stuff on other people's servers as I do that internally.
I haven't delved too deeply into what's available, but IIUC, there are pieces (especially WRT to microservices and high-availability) which can only be utilized on Azure.
Interestingly, the initial roll out on Github *only* supports Linux-based containers/platforms/app services. This is likely because the Linux stuff was mostly done both recently and in a more open-source (if you want to integrate kernel modules quickly and with a minimum of fuss, using FOSS frameworks makes a lot of sense) fashion.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes MS to release source code for the Windows support of the service fabric.
As I mentioned in TFS, this is clearly a move by MS to make Azure more attractive to developers/implementors.
I'm not active in that particular field (cloud-based containerization/high-availability/microservices design and implementation), so I was curious as to what tools were available on other platforms and how they stacked up against MS.
It will be very interesting to see how interested MS is in incorporating new features/use cases/bug fixes and/or device support into their code. That's not as irrelevant as you might think, in that (IIUC) the service fabric software *requires* components of the Azure platform that haven't been open-sourced. As such, any fork would need to be blessed by MS or it just won't run on the only platform that supports it.
Contrariwise, other CSPs might seize on this as an opportunity to be an alternative to Azure (possibly even to "Embrace, extend, extinguish" [wikipedia.org]) by supporting not only the canonical MS service fabric, but also any forks and, eventually their own incompatible versions.
As I intimated in TFS, I wouldn't be surprised if this was MS playing catch up with its competitors (it wouldn't be the first time) and attempting to differentiate its CSP business from its software business.
I guess we'll just have to see.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr