Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers As GPL
mjasay writes "Microsoft used to call the GPL 'anti-American.' Now, as Microsoft releases Hyper-V Linux Integration Components (LinuxIC) under the GPL (version 2), apparently Microsoft calls the GPL 'ally.' Of course, there was little chance the device drivers would be accepted into the Linux kernel base unless open source, but the news suggests a shift for Microsoft. It also reflects Microsoft's continued interest in undermining its virtualization competition through low prices, and may suggests concern that it must open up if it wants to fend off insurgent virtualization strategies from Red Hat (KVM), Novell (XEN), and others in the open-source camp. Microsoft said the move demonstrates its interest in using open source in three key areas: 1) Make its software development processes more efficient, 2) product evangelism, and 3) using open source to reduce marketing and sales costs or to try out new features that highlight parts of the platform customers haven't seen before."
I guess a few years Microsoft finally got the memo that they can't protect sales of Windows by attempting to force lock-in to their entire Windows ecosystem. They realized that many of their customers mix technologies together. Examples are Java/JBoss on Windows server, Windows desktops and Linux servers (Samba), working with Mozilla developers to port Firefox to Vista, and iPhones connecting to Exchange servers (licensing ActiveSync to Apple).
By taking these actions, Microsoft ensures the continued relevance of the Windows platform instead of potentially dooming it to a proprietary ghetto.
The flip side of this focus is that Microsoft will still push Windows to OEMs to fend off other platforms. An example is their actions in the netbook space among which was to essentially give away XP. So for at least some things, Microsoft is still up to their old tricks.
This space left intentionally blank.
Hyper-virtualisation. Running OS's under other OS's. In other words, this is a patch for Linux to make it run well on Microsoft systems, so customers will feel less need to actually install Linux on servers. It's not a friendly gesture to make normal Linux systems work better, as the title suggests.
With IBM, their value proposition was quite clear and we could get along happily. Microsoft is a much trickier case. They frequently do things that are not necessarily in their best interest in the short term in order to destroy their competition and achieve long-term control.
And this results in things like IE languishing for years because nobody else is a credible threat in the browser arena. People who say that Microsoft is simply interested in making things better for their customers are blind. Microsoft had no interest in making IE better because they had no interest in the browser as a platform. It did not further their ability to control.
Microsoft would prefer a smaller and less innovative market that they completely owned to a much larger market in which they were simply a player, even if they could make a bigger profit in the larger market.
So your request to look for hidden dangers is a cogent one. And we should be looking for dangers in which Microsoft sacrifices profitability for control and destroying competition. Microsoft has repeatedly shown a willingness to do that in the past.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
If you have a mixed environment and need to host both Linux VMs and Windows VMs with optimal performance, until now VMWarea and Xen were your best options, because Linux performed sub-optimally under Hyper-V.
Now with this patch Linux will probably perform just as good under Hyper-V as it does in VMWare and Xen.
So now you might be able to be convinced to host your VMs on MIcrosoft's Hyper-V platform, where before it was not even an option.
Ah, so their motive here is try this in court and invalidate the entire GPL!
See, I knew we couldn't trust them.
I see it as an amoral (ie neither moral or immoral) part of their marketing strategy.
They are doing this for the simple reason that they want to sell more copies of Windows Hyper-V server. People buy hypervisors because they want to run different operating systems on the one computer. One of the operating systems they will want to run is Linux, and if Hyper-V server doesn't run Linux guests well, they are more likely to chose another hypervisor than chose a different operating system for their guest machine.
A lot of people have been burned repeatedly by Microsoft's empty promises. Most have also had to deal with a lot of astroturfing.
Believe it or not the fanboys who wont change their minds are not a majority. Many are just cautious and have many doubts due to past experience. Such doubts don't vanish overnight, and aren't helped by dismissive comments like the parent here.