Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Run Linux On Azure
snydeq writes "After years of battling Linux as a competitive threat, Microsoft is now offering Linux-based operating systems on its Windows Azure cloud service. The Linux services will go live on Azure at 4 a.m. EDT on Thursday. At that time, the Azure portal will offer a number of Linux distributions, including Suse Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP2, OpenSuse 12.01, CentOS 6.2 and Canonical Ubuntu 12.04. Azure users will be able to choose and deploy a Linux distribution from the Microsoft Windows Azure Image Gallery and be charged on an hourly pay-as-you-go basis."
Microsoft almost always supports other platforms if it has enough marketshare and if they think they can make money off it. They even seem to be making Office for the iPad. The summary is trying to be a troll as usual. This is like WINE, more support is always good if you trying to get as many customers as possible.
They even released an Android app recently.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-bing-mobile-team-introduces-new-app-first-for-android-phones/12856
This space for rent.
They called us commie scum. We will never forget.
NO SIG
And a cancer.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
My understanding, back when MS first started talking about the whole 'Azure' thing, was that they were trying to distinguish themselves from Amazon(and others) 'just a bunch of VMs, but easy to buy/release programmatically' product in favor of some sort of more abstracted 'platform' that would hide both the hardware details and the OS guts, in favor of an environment that mostly resembled an application's-eye-view of Windows; but without the Windows administration, along with some similarly abstracted SQL and web-hosting things. It was always presumed that it wouldn't exactly be running on Linux; but that it didn't 'run Windows' in the sense of any 'Windows' SKU that Joe Customer could buy a box of and plunk onto a server at the office...
Was offering just-plain-boring offsite VMs always part of the plan? Did they discover somewhere partway through the execution phase that their pure-cloud application environment just wasn't quite Windows enough for their customers? Are the plain-VM offerings an integral part of the somewhat confusing alphabet soup of 'azure services', or is this a checkbox-filling thing that was tacked on because somebody wanted it and the internal cost of hyper-v licenses is small?
Ah, I haven't had a good ROTFL in a long time. Some time in the '90s I guess. Thanks.
Wait until ... Linux is eating into their desktop business...
Yes, and that will be two days after pigs grow wings and fly.
PS, I love Linux as a server, and it runs my Rails stuff very well, but "Linux on the Desktop"? Seriously? Does anyone believe in that anymore?
Microsoft makes big bucks from their server stuff. Really big money. Linux on the server is more of a threat to MS than is (an extremely theoretical) Linux on the desktop. Still they do it in Azure. Looks like you just proved that you are a clueless git (no, not the distributed kind that Torvalds did).
I was planning to book a skiing vacation in Colorado, but it looks at if all the sweet powder will be on the mountains in hell.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
I heard this Charon guy it's having problems with the freeze of the styx river
Slashdot ya no es que lo era!
I agree that this is a positive step.
I have nearly a religious hatred towards MS, and it has nothing to do with "Microsoft's desire for profit." I work for a company that sells software for profit, so obviously that would would be hypocritical if I felt that way.
What I've always hated about Microsoft was their willingness to buck standards just to prevent their users from using other products along with MS products.
This started with early versions of Windows that required you to also buy DOS. A competitor to DOS came out (Dr. DOS), and Microsoft responded by putting a check into the Windows bootstrap that would cause it to exit out with an error if Dr. DOS was detected. Any time a company goes out of their way to make their own product not operate with 3rd party software, it generates serious rage from customers like me.
As I look back over the last few years, the last move by MS that really angered me was the whole OOXML vs Open Document war, where Microsoft refused to use the new standard, and instead made their own new standard with built in obfuscation.
There's still a lot terrible decisions that MS makes for their customers (hiding file extensions by default in Windows, modifying extensions on files downloaded with IE without informing the user, automatically removing line breaks on messages read in Outlook without telling the user), but I've seen far less pure evil come from the giant, compared to ages past.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
With so many different Linux distributions, how are you so sure one isn't named Azure?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
... that Microsoft is now embracing Linux and will be extending its capabilities?
This started with early versions of Windows that required you to also buy DOS. A competitor to DOS came out (Dr. DOS), and Microsoft responded by putting a check into the Windows bootstrap that would cause it to exit out with an error if Dr. DOS was detected.
If you're telling old war stories, at least tell them right. This particular one is known as AARD code. It was present in a beta version of Windows 3.1. Digital Research found it a month before release, and so it was disabled there.
And a cancer
And throw in a chair
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You're either a fucking idiot or you're doing some sort of "I'm going to look like a moron in order to troll you" deal.
The article is about Microsoft offering to run Linux distros on Azure, not Microsoft stripping away all of their production servers and reinstalling their Azure stack on SLES servers with Xen. Microlith is absolutely correct when he says that while Microsoft will primary protect and care their own products, they might also support things you would not expect (Linux) when it is beneficial to them in a way (their cloud service being interesting for Linux users).
And always remember to include the memo from Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg:
"What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS."
Yeah, but why would you want to run Linux through a Microsoft cloud server? That's the big mystery.
Citation please.
it was a little tough to find this, but here ya go:
Microsoft To Run Linux On Azure
The Admin and the Engineer
Oh my God! They Kilkenny!
You bastards!