SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Microsoft has announced that Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is coming to Windows Server.
Microsoft's adding it to Windows Server for the same reasons it added it to Windows: it wants developers to have whatever tools they prefer at their disposal.
Sysadmins are also on Redmond's mind, it says. "If you're a server engineer that needs to run node.js, Ruby, Python, Perl, Bash scripts or other tools that expect Linux behaviors, environment or filesystem-layout, the ability to install and run Linux with WSL expands the tools at your disposal on Windows Server."
Redmond snuck WSL into Windows Server Insider Build 16237 without including it in the announcement. It's now issued instructions on how to install it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:17AM (6 children)
But how would that benefit MS? The reason they're doing this is because the rest of the software dev world is passing them by. If they start to throw their weight around again, people will just shrug and deploy Linux.
They're going with openness for a reason in this and in many other areas - it makes serious commercial sense.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday August 11 2017, @01:36AM (4 children)
If they start to throw their weight around after they have built a large developer base they will have inertia. And can then "force" other free projects to do bad designs or to use copyrighted or patented techniques. There are all sorts of ways this can be abused. Systemd and FAT32-long_filename should give some hints.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 11 2017, @02:58AM (3 children)
That's what forking is for. You go back to what isn't now patent encumbered by Redmond and start work from there. I think that those communities would be incredibly stupid to pay attention to Microsoft for one second. When somebody comes around complaining their MS-Linux isn't working, you remind them that Linux can be installed without MS Server in the mix. In fact, that's predominately how servers ARE operating right now. Without Microsoft :) That and I'm pretty sure it's just as easy to virtualize a true Linux server on the same Windows Server, and then use networking to have your programs/APIs communicate between them. I'm no stranger to making Windows platforms work with Linux platforms, and I didn't need to shove Linux into Microsoft to do it. I wonder which one is truly more cost effective?
If commercial support contracts get involved they may try and throw their weight around, but again, anybody getting into bed with Microsoft knows this. Or seemingly Redhat at this point.
Uh huh. Except that node.js, Ruby, Python, PERL, and Bash scripts can install and run on BSD and deal with BSD environments, filesystem-layouts, and behaviors. They imply those platforms and languages strongly expect only Linux environments, which may be misleading. For that matter, to my knowledge, all of them except Bash can run on Windows. Bash is pure Linux/BSD commands so probably not, but even Perl has Strawberry and ActiveState Perl to use it on Windows. The rest of them has similar support to run natively and directly in Windows. So why does Window need native support for Linux again?
I'm certainly not finding any great difficulty using anyone of those in OpenBSD at the moment, excepting Ruby. Not using anything with Ruby under the hood. That I know of.
So if they fuck up Linux land too much, there might be a ton of refugees coming in to BSD land. That's just fine. Bring us your tired, sick, and wretched poor :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 11 2017, @03:23AM (2 children)
You can fork code but patents are harder to get around.
One problem area is that manufacturers of cameras, printers, recorders, etc makes use of exFAT a successor to FAT32 which is encumbered. Even if someone implements the code independently, it's fucked with patents. And if a free format is created, manufacturers of equipment will not implement it.
Because Windows is particularly messy to get it to work with Unix programs?
Most Unix machines are just download-configure-compile Done! Windows.. not so.
That is the time to remind that if they go for shit, they pay with $$. Unless it contributes to screwing Microsoft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:29AM (1 child)
Bullshit. Get a lawyer. If the code is forked, if it can be forked, it is not subject to copyright. And if it is, fuck it, change five words in the doc, and rename it. How can we have this level of stupidity and MicroSerf shilling on SoylentNews?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:16PM
You apparently don't understand the difference between copyright and patents.
Or maybe you are just trolling?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday August 11 2017, @06:16AM
What their advantage would be? The plan probably goes something like this:
Step 1 (embrace): "Hey, you can use all your Linux stuff also on Windows. While at the same time being able to run all that Windows software without any hassle. So don't install Linux, install WSL instead."
Plan: Get enough people to do exactly that.
Step 2 (extend): "Hey, we've implemented that cool extra functionality on WSL. You'll not get that in stock Linux."
Plan: Any software that uses that new functionality is inherently bound to WSL, and thus Windows. Initially that will be a small enough fraction to ignore. But if the plan works out, sooner or later enough software depends on it that people are stuck on Windows even with software that's nominally written for Linux.
Step 3 (extinguish): "We've implemented another cool feature on WSL. Unfortunately this means we had to make incompatible changes. But don't worry, we've got tools to help you porting your software to the new version"
Plan: This is done after WSL already achieved dominance. It forces people to choose between writing for stock Linux, or writing for WSL. With WSL being dominant, the majority of suppliers will choose WSL over stock Linux. Linux will fall back to irrelevance.
Alternatively (or parallel to it) the plan could be that as soon as every Linux distribution either already runs on WSL or can be easily adapted to run on it, they drop signing of Linux bootloaders, with the argument that this is no longer needed; you can just run your Linux under WSL instead. This is after SecureBoot was made mandatory (no way to switch it off). At that point, you're completely dependent on Microsoft in order to run Linux.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.