upstart writes in with an IRC submission:
With an article that covers "From Cancer to Cloud" and beyond, Techrepublic asks: What is Microsoft Doing With Linux? Everything You Need to Know About its Plans for Open Source
'Microsoft and Linux' should be a phrase we're used to hearing by now. Microsoft is a member of not only the Linux Foundation but also the Linux kernel security mailing list... Microsoft is submitting patches to the Linux kernel... And when Microsoft wanted to add container support to Windows, it picked an open-source specification designed originally for [Linux].Now Azure customers get the same hybrid benefits for Linux support contracts as they do for Windows Server licences; Windows runs Linux binaries; some key Microsoft applications are available on Linux; and new services might be built with Linux.[...] At the recent Azure Open Day, Kubernetes co-founder and Microsoft corporate vice-president Brendan Burns talked about Microsoft having a deep understanding of Linux and contributing to existing open-source projects based on Linux as well as founding new ones like Dapr (Distributed Application Runtime). [...] In short, Microsoft 'hearts' Linux.
'Microsoft and Linux' should be a phrase we're used to hearing by now. Microsoft is a member of not only the Linux Foundation but also the Linux kernel security mailing list... Microsoft is submitting patches to the Linux kernel... And when Microsoft wanted to add container support to Windows, it picked an open-source specification designed originally for [Linux].
Now Azure customers get the same hybrid benefits for Linux support contracts as they do for Windows Server licences; Windows runs Linux binaries; some key Microsoft applications are available on Linux; and new services might be built with Linux.
[...] At the recent Azure Open Day, Kubernetes co-founder and Microsoft corporate vice-president Brendan Burns talked about Microsoft having a deep understanding of Linux and contributing to existing open-source projects based on Linux as well as founding new ones like Dapr (Distributed Application Runtime).
[...] In short, Microsoft 'hearts' Linux.
But forget the idea of throwing away the Windows kernel and replacing it with a Linux kernel, because Microsoft's approach to Linux is far more pragmatic and comprehensive. Although the company is now thoroughly cross-platform, not every application will move to or take advantage of Linux. Instead, Microsoft adopts or supports Linux when the customers are there, or when it wants to take advantage of the ecosystem with open-source projects.
With GNU/Linux increasingly a part of both Windows 10 and Microsoft's cloud offerings, do you prefer to get your Linux from Microsoft, or from a more traditional source?
Microsoft Windows Linux for Everybody
Windows 10 Will Soon Ship with a Full, Open Source, GPLed Linux Kernel
Open Source's Eric Raymond: Windows 10 Will Soon be Just an Emulation Layer on Linux Kernel
and now i need some. Linked article reads like an ad. And M****$*** can bite my shiny kitty ass.
At the recent Azure Open Day, Kubernetes co-founder and Microsoft corporate vice-president Brendan Burns talked about Microsoft having a deep understanding of Linux and contributing to existing open-source projects based on Linux as well as founding new ones like Dapr (Distributed Application Runtime).
I think we all know the third step.
Exactly my thoughts on reading this (both summary and FA). Now that the Extend...Embrace period is near over look for the snap of the mouse trap.OTH, is this now the dawn of Linux on the desktop?
I'll answer that. You've been able to get linux and support from competitors of microsoft for ages and ages. HP sells HP-UX and Linux. IBM sells AIX and Linux. Oracle sells Solaris and Linux. So there's a market, so there's no reason for MS to not also have a footprint in that market.
Except all the customers remember their patent bs, the SCO backing and fake lawsuits, and all their bad behavior. I've been at this for over 20 years, never has a single customer bought anything linux from microsoft. Never has anyone used the windows linux crap. Which isn't new on windows 10 btw. MS has had services for linux since I believe NT3.51, the only POSIX-compliant OS by microsoft, which came from a company they bought. The only thing people use their linux layer for within windows is because they want to use a shell like ksh, in windows, and they're annoyed with cygwin.
This story looks like marketing PR, is complete BS, and if we had "editors" "editing" it's something that should never make it on this site. But hey, it's from one of those people who get their garbage on the front page without being read by anyone, so here we are again.
Next story in the approved queue: did you know you can now get $800 off an iphone12? check it out tech nerds, and discuss this awesome deal.https://www.bestbuy.com/site/electronics/top-deals/pcmcat1563299784494.c?id=pcmcat1563299784494&intl=nosplash [bestbuy.com]
It's also a distraction from the thousands of layoffs going on in their Azure division. There have been several rounds of layoffs there this year, each round with thousands of those worms getting the boot.
Any submissions linking to either Techrepublic or ZDNet ought to go straight to the bit bucket. Keep in mind that both are owned by the same mass marketing company. Lately M$ has been increasing its use of marketing companies to promote the illusion of profit and growth in its failing ventures. It is marketeering in place of actual technology articles.
Would you like to join the editors team? It's all for free :)
nope. but i would pay for someone's time to perl up semi-automation code to preselect stories into a smaller set that's manageable by current editors, to result in better stories like we had a year ago. something that for one won't just take 10 from one submitter, half reaking of bird migration blandness. you don't want me on your team, i use an anonymous public forum to vent the daily amount of asshole in me.
> i use an anonymous public forum to vent the daily amount of asshole in me.
You don't say! Your posts are shit by the way.
aah look, the person I'm making fun of thinks the quality of my words is lacking. did you also think the guy in high school stuffing you into a locker while the girls giggled had bad manners?
to this battle of wits sir, you've come unarmed. but do keep going. it's very entertaining for me.
i use an anonymous public forum to vent the daily amount of asshole in me.
Well fuck off, asshole.
no thanks. how about i just keep doing exactly what i always do and completely ignore your lonely opinion. if you don't like text in front of you, don't read it. tell me, do you often buy and read muslim texts and then send the muslims a letter asking them to stop writing, because you don't like what you read?
actually... i bet that's exactly what you do. with many things. and i bet in your brain your actions make logical sense.
The company that perma-Temped employees so it wouldn't
have to pay them full benefits is now able to monetize software engineering
talent for *no salary or benefits at all*. For MS, it was never about proprietary
software. It was about making money any way possible. If they can do it by
owning software, great. If they can do it by owning developers, even better.
This is what I've never understood about RMS, and other left-leaning
people supporting the GPL. It's like... the WORST UNION CONTRACT EVER.
No, the GPL is not.
It allows you to monetize providing a service, secure in the knowledge that the tools you use are free (in both senses of free). You are not like an independent motor mechanic unable to afford the proprietary tools needed to service cars and (John Deere) tractors and other agricultural vehicles. Don't think for one minute that if companies could hide software tools behind exorbitant paywalls that they would not.
Original AC that was moderated "Troll" here. Sure, it allows you to monetize
providing a service, and if your business model is built around providing something *other*
than software, that's great for you because you find software to be a cost center, and the GPL
brings those costs way down.
"(both senses of free)". The idea that English is inadequate in this regard is silly
too, and I find the fact that so many people buy into that to be cult-like. We don't need
loan words from French or any other language to tell us what "copyleft" is. It's not "Free as in libre".
It's "public as in the commons". At least the *license* gets that right--general PUBLIC license; but
the thing about English not having the right word is pure rhetoric for brain-washing purposes. It
makes people feel special that they've transcended convention to the point where "English is inadequate".
Inanimate objects don't have the quality of being free in the "liberated" sense. It's a silly concept.
I find the GPL as an antidote to the excesses of things like John Deere to be unsatisfying.
I'd prefer a right to repair, and even a right to analyze software--but not a requirement that it be
permissible to redistribute such things commercially.
The freedom to redistribute things commercially combined with the requirement to open source
is leading us towards an operating system monopoly, except that the monopoly is public instead
I don't see public monopolies as being any better than private ones, and of course MS loves
monopolies too so getting back to my "Troll" point--"of course MS loves Linux". I'm not surprised
With open source that is BSD-style, you can (if it makes sense) roll it in to proprietary
products that compete under the business model that originally got MS where it is. The last thing
MS wants is something like Windows without telemetry and constantly changing UIs. competing with the old Windows.
So of course they love Linux now. They're in the castle. Time to raise the drawbridge.
>This is what I've never understood about RMS, and other left-leaning people supporting the GPL. It's like... the WORST UNION CONTRACT EVER.
First, GPL have nothing to do with left wing, it is totally apolitical... some people love to do that association, but as true as saying that stealing is right wing thing!
The idea of GPL is protecting the code and user. No where it says that developers must work for free and the true is that most open source developers in bigger projects today are paid for do that.Yes, in smaller projects, the developer usually work for free, but either it is solving it own problem or hope it will grow and upgrade to paid job... not that different from the right wing idea of a intern not being paid to gain experience. The difference between this and the traditional closed source development is that when a shareware software is abandon, it is lost but in open source, someone else can resume it. Add to that you can reuse other projects and use multiple building blocks, like a lego.
This is what MS is doing, it taking the open blocks, add their own (also open blocks, due to the GPL, and using their own paid developers) and slam it inside a windows hidden VM. Sell that to some clueless companies as a excuse to not migrate to linux and get paid
Ballmer wanted "to emphasise the competitive threat, and in some senses the competitive opportunity, that Linux represents. Linux is a tough competitor. There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it."
Homework assignment: deep-faked this Gates and Torvalds.
Seriously! I had a nice computer. It had an operating system. And the Microsoft fucked my dog! Literally! Poor pooch could not even get it up to tell the time of day, or load the recent journal entries on SoylentNews. It was that bad. So, fuck Microsoft in their tiniest orifice, with the smallest phallus possible. They were evil before Google managed it. Farch them.
Kafkaesque surrealism of the situation resembles absurd theater style of the past century, actually positioning Linux users spectators at place of tragedy victims.
Fork the kernel project now before it's too late.Split it by platforms and ISAs, the divergence in hardware is dragging kernel mechanics down already, for years.
If you're so fucking concerned about hardware divergence, just use NetBSD.
Well, Linux is a monolithic kernel, with all support for hardware contained within it. Has been since its beginning. I don't know how much of the kernel source code is devoted to the thousands of devices that Linux supports, but it's well over 50%.
Forking won't change that. Got to move to a different system, perhaps a microkernel architecture such as Minix 3. Microkernels haven't gotten the love, and as far as I'm aware, none of them are anywhere near Linux's level of development. One of the most developed may be a commercial, proprietary one, QNX.
Microkernel Linux [mklinux.org] (Last updated: Saturday, 12-Jan-2008 12:21:05 PST)
Destroy it. Duh.
Twenty years ago: trying to stop open source is like trying to use your hands to prevent the ocean tide from coming in, or block the sunlight from reaching the earth.
Microsoft ❤️ Linux
Foxes ❤️ Chickens
Sharks ❤️ Fish
Cut off their air supply.
Agreed. This seems like a spider & fly scenario.
With all the features you love...
- - Telemetry
- - Blue Screen of Death
- - Forced Updates and Reboots