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."
Send sweaters
Ahhh right. And IBM c.s. is run by a bunch of code-hugging hippies and they function as a charity to release code for the improvement of the world.
How *could* I have missed that?
Perhaps Microsoft's lawyers found a weakness in the GPL, or they want to litigate the FSF into the ground.
"Beware of G[r]eeks bearing gifts".
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
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.
Some drivers to make Linux work better inside MS's Windows Server Hyper-V virtualization platform? How altruistic...
I'll be more impressed when MS, for example, helps with the SAMBA project. Or at least, doesn't actively screw up with such interop projects from the FOSS community. No GPL code required, just give people decent, up-to-date, open specs; and no patents bullshit.
Or at very least, when MS stops enforcing such patents (see TomTom / FAT32, or again SMB in MS/Novell "agreement").
Hyper-V
Basically, its a virtualization system that runs as a role on Server 2008. Parts of it work a lot like VirtualPC does (Microsoft's desktop virtualizaton system) but it also has some nice features such as automatic save-state when the host OS is shutting down which also can automatically restore when the host OS comes back up and starts the Hypver-V role.
I honestly don't know how I got here. I just woke up and here I am in your universe, AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE TO MY OWN HOME UNIVERSE. IT'S TRUE! You can't imagine how glad I am to be here. I'm definitely not going back. Things are bad where I come from.
ideopath @ play
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
I think Microsoft gets upset if any other company talks to the BIOS besides them. Here's a page from VMWare that compares their own product to Microsoft's Hyper-V. Hyper-V only debuted as a beta a year ago and they're already compromising company policy to release Linux kernel level code.
Wikipedia page for Hyper-V
The GPL is about maintaining control.
The GPL is about maintaining control huh? Tell that to Oracle. Who has control over the future of MySQL? Oracle or the people who are contributing code to it?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think you have this precisely backwards. The GPL is about protecting the rights of users to modify the software they use and distribute those modifications. So it does, in fact, give control to the end user--the sort of control that Microsoft does not tend to give--while the author relinquishes some control.
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.
Forking sounds very nice but for this situation it would require NOT just for people to be willing to DO the fork but then to keep the fork up-to-date.
Remember MS sale technique. The first one is free. What if they release the base module as GPL, then put everything you are going to need once you started to use it as closed source? MS owns the code after all, so they GPL'ed this version but can keep any future version closed source just as long as they keep other peoples code out.
Read up on exactly WHAT Embrace, Extend, Extinguish means and remember that MS has NEVER EVER played nice. It will even hurt it self it thinks it can spite its customers. Look at the Zune. Why did it bend over backwards to introduce all kinds of restrictions? To appease who? The music industry? Why? The iPod didn't and Apple does just fine with the music industry. No, MS did it because MS will ALWAYS try to squeeze the last bit of money out of anything.
I personally do not believe for a SECOND that MS will NOT introduce some sort of tierd service that somehow is going to screw anyone who is going to build their business on this tech. Just as MS did with the MP3 companies that build their business on MS music store only to not enable its own tech in its own player.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Big deal. Such drivers are trivial.
Virtualizing physical I/O devices on PC-like architectures requires code in the hypervisor to emulate the device. The driver in the operating system does stores into "device registers" as if talking the real device. Each such store or load causes a trap to the hypervisor, which has a device emulator watching the register changes and pretending to be the real peripheral. When the right registers have been loaded with the right values, and the final register store is made that would start the I/O operation, the device emulator then figures out what the OS wanted to do, and makes a call to the hypervisor's I/O system to do it.
In many cases, the device driver in the OS is doing all the optimization for the device controller of a real disk, doing angular optimization and head movement minimization. Since the real device underneath may be completely different, most of this is wasted work, and may reduce performance instead of increasing it.
So it's common to have dummy device drivers for virtual machines that just pass the OS's request through to the hypervisor, without trying to manage a real device. Such drivers don't do much, and are usually trivial, although Microsoft will probably try to complicate them somehow.
This isn't a new idea; it first appeared in IBM's VM for the System/370, where such calls were passed through using the DIAGNOSE instruction (an opcode used for hardware diagnostics only, and thus never used in ordinary programs and available as a spare opcode.)
One of the hypervisor vendors calls this "paravirtualization".
God the paranoia on this site is thick. It increases the value of Hyper-V to Microsoft clients, as their Linux virtual machines will run more efficiently in it. That's it. That's all. Relax. Breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes until you're under control again. The sky is not falling. Dogs and cats are not sleeping together.
Comment of the year
"If Microsoft didn't have a past history of trying to sue over Linux, people like me wouldn't be this paranoid."
It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Easy -- they think people will be more likely to use Microsoft's HyperV if its Linux performance is better. They're in competition with other virtualization software makers. They can either release an appropriate Linux driver or tell HyperV users to have decreased Linux performance and functionality. Clearly they think the former is a better business deal. It doesn't really add a lot to Linux, since if you're in the market for virtualization, you probably aren't trying to decide if your guests will run Linux or Windows, but already have specific requirements.
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.
I think I'm way more likely to virtualize *Windows* servers on a Linux host than otherwise. The company I work for doesn't run Windows on bare metal anymore.
A good reason for that is that Windows isn't really administrable via a serial console, so that if networking is blown, you'd require either an iLO/DRAC type hardware solution or would have to go with relatively costly KVM over IP.
Honestly, I don't think this is big news. The host component isn't being opensourced, so you need a Windows-whatever server to run Linux hosts under it. I think I'll stick to Xen for paravirtualization and VMware/Virtualbox for full virtualization, thank you.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
1. Collect the most patent/copyright protected parts that you can get your hands on. ...
2. Weave them into device driver code in a way that makes it impossible to notice the source of the code, unless you are the one who might sue (=yourself).
3. Release them as GPL and let it grow into Linux.
4.
5. Sue Linux to death! (=Profit)
</humor>
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You are really funny! Actually, I'm the head of Open Source and Linux Strategy for Microsoft Corporation. I'm from Oakland, California.
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
Flamebait? Dude...it was a joke.
Sorry about the mess.
If the code is GPLed then the competition can use it.
If MS makes shitty code or plays dirty tricks (how could they do that with software that is open to all to see?) it would be obvious to all, and the problems could be fixed and the improvements used by others.
I dislike Microsoft strongly, you just have to read my comments on this website, but I have also argued that if they play fair they should be welcomed, cautiously of course, but I really struggle to see how MS could undo the effects of GPLed software released by them...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Good to see that the users of /. are completely biased against Microsoft no matter what they do. Glad to see how open minded this community is. This Microsoft = Evil crap gets really old after awhile. They are one of the most innovative companies out, produce quality software, offer much of it for free (Virtual PC? SharePoint Designer?) to the development community, and now they're trying to put out drivers for Linux under a license that garuntees they will be open and free and still everyone on /. is going to bash them and say this is a conspiracy.
I've taken Software Engineering classes at 3 different Universities (Drexel, George Mason, and West Chester). At every University they presented studies comparing open and closed source software. Closed source wins on almost every level; fewer errors, quicker fixes, better performance. Open source is a great ideal but just because someone COULD go through and edit and contribute code doesn't mean someone WILL go through and fix the errors or even find them in the first place. When I was 16 this open source evangelism had me convinced; a Masters Degree in Computer Science and 10 years in the industry have convinced me that open source is more hype than anything else and very few people are going to sit day after day and produce quality code and products if they don't get paid for it. Microsoft has contributed more to computing than any single company but everyone on this site just loves to hate them for no real reason; and I'm sure you'll all be jumping into anything Google produces (such as Chrome OS) despite the fact that your Holy Google is nothing but DoubleClick 2.0.
I thought this was an open-minded community once; now I realize it is nothing but a bunch of like minded extremists who only want to hear their opinions confirmed without any real argument or debate. When Microsoft does something to promote software interoperability with your open source products I would think that these open source advocates would be happy; instead you assume it is a giant conspiracy to overthrow the open-source community. Grow up.
"we based our code on existing GPL'ed code; by the terms of the GPL itself we must therefore open source our code. This is what the linux devs asked for by choosing the GPL."
Seems pretty clear to me. Nicely done, Microsoft, keep up the good work.
Sure, but I'm even more inclined to say "nicely done, GPL, keep up the good work." This is why copyleft is good for Linux, good for the world.
Property is theft.
Sam, I mean this sincerely:
Microsoft has a long, long history of letting its mid-level managers and employees believe one thing, when the top managers intend something else, something very unfriendly and sneaky.
For example, Microsoft employees believed that they would be allowed to finish their work. But, in spite of strong opposition inside Microsoft, Windows Vista was released.
Other products released before they were finished:
Windows XP (Okay after SP2, a lot of grief before)
Windows ME
DOS 3.0
Since Microsoft has acted against the best interests of its customers in many ways in the past, people think that will happen this time.
I listened to this interview of you: Sam Ramji of Microsoft Tells all. It's obvious that you are intelligent and well-meaning. I would tend to trust anything you say if you have control over it. However, I think it is likely that you have no control. I'm guessing that it is likely that some vicious Microsoft top manager has some plan to cause trouble.
Why do I think that? Because sneaky behavior by Microsoft has cost me tens of thousands of dollars over the years.
Spoken like someone who has not given it a try yet.
While the system requirements on the download page seem to require Server 2008... that is not fully accurate... instead I'd consult the full system requirements page.
Hyper-V Server is a stand-alone, bare-metal hypervisor which is installed directly onto a machine without the need for a paid version of Windows sitting below... but which is also installable as a separate role under the full versions of Windows Server.
Ideally once it's all installed (the stand-alone version), you need only join it to an Active Directory domain in order to easily administer it from another Vista or 2008 box using the Remote Server Administration Tools... but even that is optional really as it can be administered without as well as in the end administration is just DCOM and WMI.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
It is too bad that magazines like Infoworld cannot (or do not) bring their old material into the World Wide Web. As the debacle unfurled, Infoworld sent an editor to interview the highest guy at Microsoft in charge of DOS. The interview went like this:
IW: "Lotus 1-2-3 is the most popular application running on PCs today. Your new version of DOS does not work with it. Didn't you do any testing?"
MS: "Yes of course we did testing."
IW: "What were the results of your tests?"
MS: "We knew there would be problems."
It was only afterward that the phrase "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" was exposed.
In case you didn't live through this history (I did):
Microsoft was a partner in the L.I.M. specification that allowed programs to access extended memory. L.I.M. = Lotus, Intel, and Microsoft.
Microsoft changed Windows and (and through it their new spreadsheet product, Excel) to do LIM access on word boundaries instead of byte boundaries. Then they changed the LIM driver to only work on word boundaries, and to cause a fault in the programs that attempted access on byte boundaries. Super conveniently, they didn't bother to notify Lotus (or Intel) that they implemented a we-are-going-to-break-all-your-programs change to the L.I.M. spec.
They shipped DOS first, and apologized later. Except they didn't apologize. They ran advertisements picturing a jet fighter pilot crash helmet. "Crash proof. Doesn't it make sense to get your applications from the people who make your OS?"
More history: the first time you launched Lotus 1-2-3 in Windows with the new DOS, the dialog box said "This program has violated system integrity. You should reboot to ensure proper operation of the system. If it happens again, consult with your application vendor."
Clearly the blame was pointed at Lotus 1-2-3 by Microsoft in Windows. But what changed?
DOS was finally done when Lotus wouldn't run.
Infoworld also interviewed people at Lotus. Infoworld asked if Lotus was going to sue, and the Lotus person said no, for two reasons. One, that Lotus was still dependent on Microsoft and DOS (reading between the lines, it looked like they were saying they've sabotaged us once already, and could do it again). Two, the lawyers at Lotus asked the engineers about the change, and came to the conclusion that Microsoft would claim they made the change because "it is better". Word boundaries for memory access are easier than byte boundaries.
The evil here is that the change was made with malice aforethought toward Lotus, AND, the notification of the change was withheld from Lotus.
Lotus would probably have agreed that word boundaries were better. The crime was they were denied an opportunity to prepare for the change.
But proving to a judge (and this was before judges were at all tech-savvy) that Microsoft didn't innocently bungle a line of communication or two was not a case the Lotus lawyers thought they could win. The technical argument "it is better" would have to be offset by "no it's not. it is memory wasteful" which in the age of 2MB RAM machines meant something.
As for your claim that people wouldn't buy the new DOS - they didn't. Microsoft slip-streamed the new version of DOS to Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, et. al. They told HP (and everybody) "Here is a new version of DOS. Include it with your new machines instead of the old version of DOS." As the debacle unfurled, HP had to quick issue old versions of DOS to everyone that that got screwed. (I was one of those HP customers at the time).
I realize that you are probably a Microsoft shill that will always attempt to discredit the deliberate damage Microsoft inflicted on it's biggest competitor. Which is why I am going to call you out on it. If you don't want to be called a shill, then you need to not be a shill.
The truth is Microsoft changed DOS and knew it would completely screw over Lotus. They had tested it. They wrote a Windows error message to shi