Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro

jbernardo writes: Microsoft has built a Linux distro, and is using it for their Azure data centers. From their blog post: "It is a cross-platform modular operating system for data center networking built on Linux." Apparently, the existing SDN (Software Defined Network) implementations didn't fit Microsoft's plans for the ACS (Azure Cloud Switch), so they decided to roll their own infrastructure. No explanation why they settled on Linux, though — could it be that there is no Windows variant that would fit the bill? In other news, Lucifer has been heard complaining of the sudden cold.

Comments

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

Science has indeed gone too far!

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

A comment should be a comment about whatever the article is about.
Anything else is, by definition, off-topic.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

Just like these comments.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Anonymous Coward]

And the different comment threads can have sub topics based on the topics in the article which do not relate to each other. The subject line helps to differentiate this on sites with a lot of posts.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I can tell you're new here, so I'll make this simple. Slashdot is only useful for the comments and the 'stories' simply create a starting point of discussion. That's why no one reads the linked articles. The only truly 'off-topic' comments are the trolls and they're not worth modding down. Very rarely should anything be modded off-topic IMHO.

MS uses what works

[danbuter]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not use MS Windows in my house either.

Re:MS uses what works

[neilo_1701D]

Exactly.

I'm sure that given time and money, there could be a Windows variant that did the job. But that isn't MS's focus. Here in the Microsoft Dynamics consulting world, Azure is what is being pushed hard for all the latest enterprise systems (CRM, ERP). Microsoft makes it's money from Azure and everything that runs on top of that. This stuff is nothing to them.

Re:MS uses what works

[bug1]

No reason not to use Linux.

Except that its un-American, and causes cancer...

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

Morover, it probably makes things a lot simpler for them in terms of cost-centering the licence costs. (ie even if Microsoft as whole doesn't have to pay to use Windows, individual departments within the company will need to allocate a cost for it within the department to make the accountants happy)

Re:MS uses what works

[spacepimp]

Also, doesn't this mean that they now have to sue themselves for the MS patents they are infringing by using Linux? I wonder if they have given themselves an NDA to find out what those infringements are finally?

Re:MS uses what works

[Penguinisto]

Speaking of which, I wonder how long it will take for Linux to 'metastasize' within the organization?

First, it fulfills a couple of roles here and there in MSFT. Next, they have to make their own in-house distro. Next, they discover that it's kind of useful for a few internal roles within a few internal departments (esp. budget-starved ones). Next...?

Slowly, surely... ?

Re: MS uses what works

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

It is likely that the need/want the option of running on non-x86 hardware, like IBM mainframes.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

The first version of Windows NT used the BSD TCP/IP stack. MS has a long history of using what's working and available until they get the time to re-writing their own version of things. So no, not slowly, surely. This is business as normal as it's been for decades.

Re:MS uses what works

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. I think in the past they might have burned 1B building a "core Windows" version for networking. I think recently MS has realized that there is no point spending a lot of money to roll your own, or even keep secret tech you make that you have no intention in selling. Ex: ASP, .Net, Entity Framework etc all going open source: none of them were things you were paying for anyways so why not open it up? You still will likely use windows and VS if you like the tech so they might as well.

Re:MS uses what works

[mwvdlee]

The big difference is that the TCP/IP stack used a BSD license but Linux has a GPL license.
You can use BSD code, add a license notice (on original BSD license) and be done.
If MS is offering the Linux distro to it's users, then it must make available it's Linux distro's code too.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more American than causing cancer?!

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

Eat your own dog food. MS does write server OS software. Presumably, if they didn't choose to use that, it's because that software doesn't meet their demands. If they choose not to use their own software now, they miss the best opportunity to improve their own software to meet customer demands.

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they distribute it which it doesn't look like they are doing

Re:MS uses what works

[geekmux]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

Well yeah, except for that whole we-sell-server-OS-solutions, in a eat-your-own-damn-dog-food kinda way...

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

... And responsible for Donald's hair

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 20% of azure is Linux and has been for a while. This is simply offering Linux tweaked for assure instead of the multipurpose distros they have offered since day one

Re:MS uses what works

[number6x]

No reason, other than Microsoft's own policy of 'Eating Its own dog food'.

This policy was in place in order to force Microsoft to develop its own solutions from within its own software, in order to force their own software to become continually better and better.

Of course Microsoft doesn't build their own chairs and desks for their offices, so where do you draw the line between the dog food policy and using other's products for solutions instead of their own? Office furniture is a no-brainer, Microsoft has no dog food to eat. Enterprise level RDBMS data bases would be another, as SQL Server is not really in the same class as Oracle or DB2. Linux, however is different. Linux is a general use OS for Intel (and other) based computers. Windows is a general use OS for Intel based computers. This is a pretty significant cross over. Anything Linux can do, Windows should be able to do. Not improving Windows to be able to match or beat Linux at something is definitely choosing to eat someone else's dog food.

It may show that Microsoft is shedding some of their traditional 'rules' in order to transform the company and create a new Microsoft.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they are free to use whatever OS they want to, but it's not a good marketing strategy for a company which has spent the last 20 years trying to get the world to use just their OS for everything because "it's the best" (paraphrasing various microsoft campaigns)

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the size of Microsoft, eating your own dogfood is the equivalent of being an external customer. You get few, if any, special privileges, and one BU should not be blocked by another. Also, arguably, Microsoft server isn't focused on an infrastructure product like Azure, but instead on business productivity.

It might surprise you to learn Apple doesn't run OS X servers on rack-mounted Mac minis underneath 1 Infinite Loop for iCloud. Crazy, right?

Re:MS uses what works

[Bert64]

What else would you expose to the internet? Most firewalls and routers these days run linux too.

Re: MS uses what works

[penguinoid]

Oh, someone will distribute it.

Re:MS uses what works

[penguinoid]

All your servers are belong to us.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS is offering the Linux distro to it's users

They aren't offering it, that's the point. The GPL has always allowed you to make your own modifications and not distribute them provided that you don't distribute modified versions of the software. You can run the modified version on your own servers to provide as much service as you like to any number of users, but as long as you don't give any of them the modified version of the program you're perfectly free to keep it all to yourself, even under GPL.

Re:MS uses what works

[macs4all]

Speaking of which, I wonder how long it will take for Linux to 'metastasize' within the organization?

First, it fulfills a couple of roles here and there in MSFT. Next, they have to make their own in-house distro. Next, they discover that it's kind of useful for a few internal roles within a few internal departments (esp. budget-starved ones). Next...?

Slowly, surely... ?

They use OS X, too, in a few places (even outside of the Mac Business Unit). Just like Apple runs Windows on some production and test equipment, as well as some other places, I'm sure.

Re: MS uses what works

[unixisc]

Then THAT someone, if it's not Microsoft itself, will be the one bound by the GPL

Re:MS uses what works

[Bert64]

Linux may run on x86, but it also runs on MIPS, PPC, ARM etc which Windows generally does not and most networking equipment does not use x86 cpus.

It's more likely that MS have realised there is no long term future in selling software, and that cloud hosting is the future due to being an ongoing revenue stream... And that's a market where linux has a heavy presence.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Next, they discover that it's kind of useful for a few internal roles within a few internal departments (esp. budget-starved ones).

It's my understanding that Microsoft can get a really good deal on Windows licenses.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...Mac...duh.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like it's own licencing mechanics would prevent using Windows Server.

Remeber that Windows Server has "Per Client" or "Per Seat" licencing. Back in the NT4 days, anyone who installed the damn thing just ignored this part of the licencing because it was a pain in the ass to audit if the client machines actually accessed the server, or were operating peer to peer. Older (pre multi-core CPU) versions of the software only let you run on single-CPU or dual-CPU systems.

That said, there can be other reasons. Just like Apple doesn't use iOS on all of their hardware (eg Airport/Time Capsule isn't an iOS device) , Microsoft might be using non-x86 hardware somewhere in their data centers, or it might just be their own version of OpenStack.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is garbage though.

Can't even get a 1 click setup file for software across distros.

Re:MS uses what works

[FranTaylor]

They use OS X, too, in a few places

Microsoft is the #1 vendor of OSX software, which makes Microsoft the #1 vendor of BSD software.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

You're missing the best benefit--they become their own case study. When Windows Server 2028 comes out, they can then transition to it, and then claim they saved X dollars and gained Y features, etc. It will still be suspect, of course, comparing a brand new Windows OS against a ten-year-old Linux fork, and Windows licenses cost them nothing, but it's not like they haven't gone down that road before, and it's good enough for the marketing guys.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 2015 and so many people still don't understand that basic truth about the GPL.

Re:MS uses what works

[painandgreed]

It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.

Then why did they destroy Danger Labs and the Side-Kick trying to migrate everything to their own servers?

Re:MS uses what works

[armanox]

Actually...we do have Windows on ARM, as recently as Windows 10 on the RPi. And we used to have Windows on MIPS and PPC - how do we know that Microsoft doesn't still have an internal port? Or that Apple doesn't still have a PPC build of OS X?

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the Windows licensing costs were really steep.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Stop parroting Spolsky
2. They are, a significant portion of Azure is Linux.
3. You are a dipshit

Re:MS uses what works

[__aaclcg7560]

Rumors of Mac OS X on ARM-based processors has been floating around for several years.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/26/rumor-apple-once-again-said-to-be-strongly-considering-arm-based-macs

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows NT was originally developed on the MIPS R1000 and ported to x86 to ensure that the codebase didn't make x86-centric assumptions. It has since been supported for the DEC Alpha, Intel Itanium, and ARM. Not as many esoteric CPU's as Linux, but nothing to sneer at either.

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Total cost of ownership, lower with Linux even when you don't have to buy a licence , at least for the datacenter.

Re:MS uses what works

[gweihir]

Indeed. They used to run microsoft.com on Apache/FreeBSD. Now they (fake?) it running on IIS.

Re:MS uses what works

[UnknowingFool]

But is it really Windows or merely called Windows like WinCE? Like you run a Windows program or do you need to rewrite/ recompile programs like in WindowsRT. Also getting Windows to run on different hardware isn't the point. It's that MS runs an OS it has publicly called a cancer.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly no reason not to use Linux.

In particular, there is not the reason that Windows would be as good or better, because it is not.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass

Linux is a significant part of Azure. Has been since day 1

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they die at the end, who cares how long it takes?

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

That has nothing to do with the grandparent's 'metastaize' comment.

Plus, MS isn't offering it to their users. They are free to make use of it in-house as they wish.

Re:MS uses what works

[UnknowingFool]

Other than the former CEO who publicly called it a cancer and communist? You'd think that after Microsoft's own experience with replacing Linux, they'd have more tact. Some notable fails: when they bought Hotmail, they tried to switch from the existing Linux servers to Windows ones. There were major system outages so they had to resort to some parts of Hotmail running on Linux. Microsoft's own website servers could not withstand daily attacks and had to hide behind Akamai's servers for protection (which run on Linux). I believe that to this day, Akamai is still doing this.

Re:MS uses what works

[UnknowingFool]

It's more about pride and stubbornness than anything. By the way, different parts of MS have had to use Linux and ran into disaster when trying to replace with Windows like Hotmail. Jim Allchin stated to upper execs during the development of Vista that he would use a Mac if he wasn't employed by Microsoft because Vista was so bad. In the later part of his career, I think he did much to the ire of other Microsofties.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because they have the rights to use those patents.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

> is definitely choosing to eat someone else's dog food.

Microsoft has always chosen someone else's dogfood: MS-DOS from SCP, Frontpage, SQLServer from Sybase, Skype, SMB from IBM, ...

Re:MS uses what works

[Bite The Pillow]

I don't think a windows variant could do the job. There are so many mature packages for linux. Apt get or whatever keeps them up to date and patched without

1) Porting something or
2) Writing from scratch

And that functionality would not be in the server, it would be an installable package. Because if Windows needed it, they would build it.

They aren't marketing windows for cloud providers, they are hosting Azure. So why add to windows if your customers don't need it? So they can build a competing cloud?

Given time and money sure, but there is no ROI nor reason to invest time and money.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really Windows.

But of course you have to recompile programs, since it's a different processor architecture.

I know Microsoft didn't let third parties run native Win32 code on Windows RT devices, but Microsoft itself was able to run native Win32 code there. So rewriting mostly isn't a problem (except for minor platform inconsistencies here and there, like assumptions on endian-ness).

Re:MS uses what works

[khellendros1984]

Maybe you can't, but that has more to do with your choice of software to run than the kernel that you run it under.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

It violates their "dogfood" rule.

Re:MS uses what works

[UnknowingFool]

So then it is Windows** (**Your normal Windows programs may not work. Restrictions may apply. See a doctor if there is bleeding . . . )

Re:MS uses what works

[Tough Love]

In 5 years Linux will burst out of Microsoft's chest screaming.

Re:MS uses what works

[Tough Love]

I'm sure that given time and money, there could be a Windows variant that did the job.

That is far from certain. Microsoft's adventures in similar areas often end in tears.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose there are a few places where the "linux is free" mantra would benefit microsoft, but they get their own software for free... Which is where most of the cost avoidance argument is directed.

Re:MS uses what works

[hawk]

Of course, Hotmail wasn't running linux . . .

It could have, but it would have needed more servers, though not as many as to switch to windows.

Hotmail was on FreeBSD, and stayed so for years

hawk

Re: MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

So get your software into the distros' repos then. For the user it will be a one-click install.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it does not.

Linux has been a significant part of Azure for quite a while now.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling OSX a BSD is almost as bad as calling Windows a BSD because they took and slightly modified Berkeley sockets.

Re:MS uses what works

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how big business works.

The cost of licenses will be billed to the MS department that foolishly uses MS tools.

Re:MS uses what works

[petermgreen]

Linux may run on x86, but it also runs on MIPS, PPC, ARM etc which Windows generally does not

The amusing thing is it *HAS* run on all those architectures but for whatever reason MS decided to abandon their mips and ppc ports and cripple the arm port.

Re:MS uses what works

[Bert64]

NT was actually developed for the Intel i860, and ported to MIPS R4000...

And yes while it *DID* support those platforms at one point, it currently does not. All those non x86 ports are dead aside from ARM, which is intentionally crippled and not a full port.

Re:MS uses what works

[Bert64]

But having to recompile programs is a major problem when 99% of those programs don't come with source code...
That's why Linux has always had far more success on non x86 architectures than windows.

Satan

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucifer was his angel name. And Satan runs OS/2.

Re:Satan

[YrWrstNtmr]

No, Satan runs BeOSelbub.

Re:Satan

[Anonymous Coward]

Satan is smart, efficient, and uses the right tools for the job.

Satan runs Linux on his hosts. He just requires all the end users work with Windows ME VM's.

Re:Satan

[Tx]

Linux? Pah! There's a reason why Microsoft owns WindowsPowersHell.org.

Re:Satan

[Holi]

Pretty sure he runs BSD.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Wrong choice

[BitZtream]

This was just a bad choice. If they wanted a proper software defined network, they'd have selected FreeBSD since it has the fastest, most compact networking stack in the world and its well known/accepted fact by anyone who does high-end networking, hence why Microsoft ALREADY has a fuck ton of FreeBSD installs on their core network labeled ... Juniper Networks ... or F5 ... or any of the other ones.

Someone deserves to get fired for this. Not because they picked Linux, but because Linux simply wasn't the right choice in any way shape or form as every other major company doing networking has illustrated.

Re:Wrong choice

[Penguinisto]

Not so fast - after all, guess what Cisco chained into their Nexus line of switches? (NX-OS is not using a FBSD kernel, after all.)

It's not that FBSD is failed or failing, but because Linux has a much bigger mindshare nowadays, which means you can more easily get the real esoteric and custom bits for your needs, especially without having to write it all yourself.

Yes, I know FBSD has linux compatibility and stuff, but that's not the point.

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Will do what?

Re:Wrong choice

[coolmoe2]

Sooo tired of FBSD blowhards claiming that it is the right choice for everything. Linux has a very large developer base and is mature enough to give all of the BSD's a run for their money. Linux is everywhere now days from the data center to your smartphone. Your claims that somebody should be fired for using it is just plain childish.

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can't use FreeBSD because they'll get bad press for supporting SCO, also freebsd/netbsd is a bit more complex than supporting the more widely using Linux hardware driver wise (nobody is going to make a driver just for freebsd)

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Simply using" is extraneous. Using "Using" will do

captcha: mistype

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

F5 uses Linux.

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Using "Using" will do" is insufficient. Using "Using "Using" will do, moron" will do, moron.

Re:Wrong choice

[Burdell]

I suggest you look up how SDN switches and Juniper routers work. In neither case is the commodity OS used in the forwarding path; it is just a control-plane OS, and the performance of the control-plane OS's network stack has no bearing on traffic performance. Whether FreeBSD's network stack is "better" than Linux's is debatable (I thought all the BSD-heads "knew" that OpenBSD's network stack was the best, not FreeBSD), but it has no relevance here.

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

wut?

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, no one has ever accused Microsoft of making good technical decisions.

Re: Wrong choice

[tomhath]

It will suffice, hence he should have only used "hence" is why.

Re: Wrong choice

[morcego]

Then why is Linux used to power rendering clusters and supercomputers, and not FreeBSD?

Re: Wrong choice

[BitZtream]

Linux powers a lot of things that its not the best choice for simply because they hired some Linux fanboy so thats all he'll suggest. Doesn't mean its the best at the job, just means they picked it. Spending an extra $20k/year on someone with a clue could save them millions on hardware.

Rendering farms aren't indented to be fast at routing packets, they're intended to use CPU cycles to render, which any OS that gets out of the way ASAP is probably good for, here its more important that the application you want to use runs on the OS you want to use. So its not surprising the more cluster apps run on Linux any more surprising that more Desktop apps run on Windows.

So while there may be a lot of Linux rendering clusters, still doesn't make it the right choice. Do you think that because a lot of people do Cocaine that its the right thing to do too? Or do you actually evaluate the situation and make a sane decision?

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Someone deserves to get fired for this."

Yes. Because Microsoft employs you as a manager and your opinion is actionable for them. Wait, what?

You are an outsider and observer, and your opinion isn't actionable? When did that happen? Are cats sleeping with dogs now? What craziness is next!?

Re:Wrong choice

[FranTaylor]

Linux compatibility is irrelevant to this discussion.

compatibility with customer skills is always relevant to the discussion of things to be sold

Re:Wrong choice

[gweihir]

I agree. What makes Linux nice is the ton of supported hardware. For an excellent Network Stack, go FreeBSD. Linux is just acceptable in that field.

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Step away from the keyboard, and take your meds before you hurt yourself.

Re:Wrong choice

[Melkman]

Sigh, the reason Juniper etc use BSD is because of the licensing, not because it's better at networking.
You can take BSD, modify everything and not have to share those modifications with anyone. So it's a great base to start building your own proprietary system. The real networking stuff in machines made by the vendors you name isn't done by the normal FreeBSD kernel but by software custom written by those manufacturers. Of course they will not back port this software to FreeBSD proper as it's the product they sell. If real heavy networking is going on its done by ASICs like Junipers Trio chipset.
If Microsoft doesn't have the intention to distribute their Linux version the licensing isn't a big deal. And there may be reasons why Linux is a better fit in their circumstance like the much more expansive hardware support.
Maybe you've heard of Arista ? Their kit runs on Linux. They must be stupid.
 

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

To most of the semi-computer-literate people BSD and Linux are the same thing. It's like calling a Toshiba copier a Xerox machine. People see Linux as a generic name for open/free *nix. So it is entirely possible M$ is using BSD, but somewhere it got mixed up with "Linux".

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many reasons Linux "won" over BSD. BitZtream's attitude is clearly one of them.

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's where OSX fans get their arrogant certainty from! It's inherited from the BSD genome.

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

... just don't look up how Juniper's SDN solution works. The private offering might be solid, but the public offering is fragile on it's best days.

captcha: hopeless

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Juniper nor Cisco are high-end anything.

You want to buy real high-end networking gear, you go talk to Ericsson or Ciena.

Juniper and Cisco don't even compete with them.

Re:Wrong choice

[machine321]

Microsoft ALREADY has a fuck ton of FreeBSD installs on their core network labeled ... Juniper Networks ... or F5

F5 moved from FreeBSD to Linux with the release of BIG-IP 9.0, in 2004.

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn, wake me up when FreeBSD supports IPv6, or has a usable FTP client.

Re: Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly the license is same same as they have done since bsd code usage in NT.

Re: Wrong choice

[goy.ben.regesh]

Certainly the license is same same as they have done since bsd code usage in NT and repeatedly from that time. I am not sure if Linus has ever said why the BSD license is a bad idea for him but its clear to me that it has to with the huge red PLEASE RAPE ME sign hanging on every BSD project.

Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

By launching their own distro, Microsoft has figured a way to grab Linux for free and make it another money-making machine for them. Now, this is ironic. Well played, I have to admit.

Re:Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

So? It's nothing different compared to other business owners who make money via running services through Linux powered servers. Bigger scale, granted.

You can make your own distro. No need to pay Red Hat for any shenanigans when you've got thousands of developers in house. Linux is always free in the end, you just pay for support and customizations/drivers that nobody else wrote yet.

Re:Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

So? It's nothing different compared to other business owners who make money via running services through Linux powered servers.

It is different because Linux was a big enemy of Microsoft back in the days.

Re: Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 20% of azure has been running Linux for some time. Various distributions have been available from day 1

Re: Clever

[Type44Q]

Indeed; so incredibly well-played that they now look far more incompetent than ever... and that's no small feat.

Speaking of the devil

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what kind of experience they're having with systemd? Are they saying something like "this crap cuts too close to home"?

Little quote currently at the bottom of the Slashdot page: "Tell the truth and run."

Re:Speaking of the devil

[gweihir]

Little quote currently at the bottom of the Slashdot page: "Tell the truth and run."

Hehehehe, nice!

This proves Linux sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Total Cost of Ownership is so high, that only a company as rich as Microsoft can use it for their own business.

Re:This proves Linux sucks

[gweihir]

Short term, you are certainly right. If you still want to have a business in 5 or 10 years and hiring the cheapest, dumbest IT staff available does not cut it, not so much.

Re: This proves Linux sucks

[Type44Q]

Aspie much? I think you missed the point...

Re:This proves Linux sucks

[im_thatoneguy]

I wouldn't really call a SDN a "computer" it's glorified firmware. So it's not like they're running a server or desktop OS.

Re: This proves Linux sucks

[gweihir]

Actually, the joke is not a joke, but with current thinking by "managers" the plain, sad truth.

Re:This proves Linux sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

and I thought that Microsoft proved that the Windows networking was faster than GNU Linux. Surely there seems to be mass chaos inside Microsoft without Bill Gates reminding the technical staff about Windows. Does anybody remember Windows? LOL

The reason they chose Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably couldn't afford the OS licenses for Windows.

Not the first time...

[Jahat]

Microsoft had a version of UNIX many years ago that was only available to developers, and Hotmail ran on Linux, if I remember correctly.

Re:Not the first time...

[SJHillman]

They bought Hotmail, rather than developing it from the ground up, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they needed to do to avoid a complete rewrite, at least for a while.

Re:Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was FreeBSD I believe. Which they promptly removed.

Re:Not the first time...

[moehoward]

Microsoft had XENIX back in the late '80s and early '90s. And, it was available to anyone. I supported many customers on it with our software and really enjoyed working with it. PC people couldn't believe that you could run a 386 or 486 and support multiple users at the same time with cheap dump terminals. And as I type this from a Linux-based Chromebook, I couldn't be happier that *NIX is not only eating Microsoft's lunch, but it is also being served for lunch at Microsoft.

We all saw this coming. And we know where it is all going...

Re:Not the first time...

[I'm New Around Here]

I worked with XENIX back in the 90s when I was in the military. It was strange seeing Microsoft's name in the copyright, but not a big deal. As long as it worked, noone cared what company made that particular version.

Re:Not the first time...

[Wdomburg]

Microsoft had the most popular version of UNIX on the market once. Xenix ran on a variety of platforms, even the Apple Lisa.

Re:Not the first time...

[present_arms]

Xenix was licenced from the then SCO to Microsoft :) It was therefore a rebadged SCO Unix it wasn't made by MS.

Re:Not the first time...

[FranTaylor]

Xenix was licenced from the then SCO to Microsoft :) It was therefore a rebadged SCO Unix it wasn't made by MS.

SCO's C compiler was Microsoft C++, not the Unix one. It's not exactly "rebadging" when you rip out the C compiler and modify all the source code to work with the new compiler.

Re:Not the first time...

[fnj]

Xenix was licenced from the then SCO to Microsoft :) It was therefore a rebadged SCO Unix it wasn't made by MS.

Just No. Microsoft licensed Unix v7 from AT&T in 1978 and announced in 1980 that they would make it available for 16 bit micros. Microsoft's license did not allow it to use the UNIX name, so they came up with Xenix as a name. Microsoft did not choose to sell it directly to end users. They licensed it to OEMs IBM, Intel, Tandy, Altos, SCO, and Siemens.

SCO was originally farting around with their own port of v7, Dynix. In 1982 they made a deal with Microsoft to jointly develop Xenix.

Re:Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

> SCO's C compiler was Microsoft C++,

Microsoft's C compiler was Lattice C.

Re:Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Xenix was licenced from the then SCO to Microsoft :) It was therefore a rebadged SCO Unix it wasn't made by MS.

No. MS purchased a licence to Unix edition 7 from AT&T. SCO was a small consultancy group (father and son) that contracted the development and support of an 8086 version of this that was called XENIX. Much later MS sold the rights to Xenix to SCO* who further developed it and incorporated System III and System V code renaming it Open Server. SCO later purchased the Unix business (not the source code) from Novell (who had jointly set up USL with AT&T and later bought AT&T's shares) and also released Unixware.

* the sale to SCO included the commitment that Microsoft would not compete against SCO in the Unix market.

Re:Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

> SCO was originally farting around with their own port of v7, Dynix.

SCO was a consultancy and was paid by various companies to work on various Unix systems. Dynix was a product of Sequent (later bought by IBM). It is likely that SCO was paid by Sequent to help develop it.

Re:Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on delusional butthurt slashdot fool. *NIX isn't eating MS lunch either.

Re:Not the first time...

[Wdomburg]

Wrong direction. SCO licensed (and eventually purchased) Xenix from Microsoft. SCO Unix was a successor of a rebadged Microsoft product.

Re:Not the first time...

[Wdomburg]

There are a few steps missing there. SCO originally released it as "SCO UNIX System V/386", then "Open Desktop", then "SCO UNIX", and then eventually "Open Desktop" and "Open Server". It wasn't until 1995 that they finally adopted the compound "OpenServer" name for good.

And technically the original SCO based all their releases on System III. It wasn't until OpenServer 6, which was released by ("The SCO Group", which was a rebadged Caleda), that they integrated the System V kernel.

That's got to hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Using something that you hate, that you have described as a toy, no good for anything serious, in preference over your own stuff, which you are spending millions of dollars on to tell everybody that it is the best thing in the world. What a kick in the balls to MS.

Not MS's first Linux

[mschaffer]

This is not the first Linux released by Microsoft.
The first one was released in 2003. http://www.mslinux.org/
It was released under GPL (Gates Private License).

Re:Not MS's first Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

MIcrosoft has a monkey colony on Mars? That's way bigger news than microsnot using Linux!!!

Re:Not MS's first Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? Are moderators taking this seriously?

Re:Not MS's first Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention they also had their own Unix OS in the 80s/90s called Xenix (though I think it was licensed from AT&T?) I remember my father's company (a small construction subcontractor) using it many moons ago.

Re:Not MS's first Linux

[Lisias]

Not to mention they also had their own Unix OS in the 80s/90s called Xenix (though I think it was licensed from AT&T?) I remember my father's company (a small construction subcontractor) using it many moons ago.

That piece of sh*t was dumped into a company called Santa Cruz Operations and became SCO Unix. A friend of mine worked with this, he called it "The Microsoft Windows from the Unix World". He laugh tons when i told him he was not wrong after all.

This also appears to explain who funded SCO for 10 years on that UNIX IP fiasco.

FreeBSD networking good in general. For specific

[raymorris]

FreeBSD is a good choice for networking appliances in general. For their specific use of software defined networking, given the specific constraints they are working under, and their precise goals ... Well, there are people who actually understand a situation, and there are random blowhards on Slashdot who onow much better what should be done, despite not knowing anything about the situation.

So where can I download MS-Linux?

[Spy Handler]

I can't find it on torrent sites.

Re:So where can I download MS-Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will probably pop up at MSDN (and DreamSpark) at some point.

Re:So where can I download MS-Linux?

[mitzoe]

http://www.mslinux.org/

Re:So where can I download MS-Linux?

[msimm]

You're welcome. I'd recommend at least scanning the "hot topics" before purchasing and installing the system.

But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[I'm New Around Here]

He only said that because he was being oppressed by the British.

I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies. So the Germans were in charge of India when Gandhi tried to press for independence. It didn't go so well for him or his followers.

Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This. My typical retort to that that Gandhi quote is:

First they march you through hundreds of miles of jungle,
then they shoot you,
then they disembowel you,
then you lose.

Mahatma Gandhi, had Japan won WW2

Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[FranTaylor]

I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies.

You can prove anything you want to, if you start with a lie.

Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[gangien]

I've heard this said for decades about Linux. And .. I think it's finally, really true. Linux has won in so many ways, it's amazing.

Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux

[I'm New Around Here]

Huh?

It's called alternative history, and is a very popular genre of fiction. Considering it is fiction to start with, it is a lie anyway. Why get your panties in a twist over that detail?

It costs how much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, budget cuts at Redmond.... Let's use Linux.

hopefully Lennart is rolling over into his grave

[Anonymous Coward]

it's an easy bet they rolled their own because they didn't want to use systemd

If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[coolmoe2]

You can always use slackware it does not use systemd and probably never will. That's why I use it on my home server.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would you suggest Slackware?

Slackware is not a viable alternative to Debian 7, for example, for any kind of serious use.

Maybe Slackware is tolerable for your hobbyist home server.

Slackware is not tolerable for anything remotely serious.

Before the systemd/Debian 8 disaster, Debian used to provide a trustworthy foundation, sensible defaults, easy package installation and updates, timely security fixes, outstanding reliability, and a large supportive community, all at a very reasonable cost.

Slackware is severely lacking in most of those areas, as are many of the other niche distros that people like you so often recommend.

That is why Slackware, and the other niche distros, are not viable options.

So don't even bother suggesting them.

They won't work.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft ever released their own linux-based distro to the world, do you really think that it would not contain all the telemetry and other BS that Microsoft has been shoving into Windows 10, 8.1, 8, and now 7?

I will never use an Operating System that has been blessed (read: cursed) by Microsoft..

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't used Slackware for ages myself. But what problem do you have with it, exactly? Why do you think it could not be used for something "serious"?

A vanilla Linux kernel with some packages compiled and installed could be used for very serious things... Are you talking about ease of deployment or updates or package management?

"Serious" applications can vary greatly and I can thing of plenty of "serious" applications where the above things would not make a bit of difference.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slackware FAQ still talks about SoundBlaster 16 and old CD-ROM drives. It gives a strong impression that this is not a distro for modern times.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As I see it, these would be my options in such a situation:

1) Use one of the major non-Microsoft Linux distros, which all use systemd. Based on my past experience with several of these systemd-using distros, there's a good chance that my computers won't boot completely, and it will be a real pain in the ass to debug such problems. Every update involving systemd or services becomes risky, too, and I've had many fail and cause yet more problems I need to investigate and fix.

2) Use this hypothetical Microsoft Linux, which doesn't use systemd, but which may include "telemetry". The chances that my computers will boot properly each and every time go way up, since systemd isn't being used. The "telemetry" also gives Microsoft an incentive to ensure my computers fully boot up, to the point where the network connectivity works perfectly, and I can perform trackable actions.

I really hate to admit it, but option 2) at least provides me with computers that work consistently. That's more than can be said about option 1)!

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[iampiti]

It'd be fun if they released a nice Linux distro at the same time they're pushing the most-invasive Windows version ever. Maybe some Linux hackers could give us a nice Windows version.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh ,you do realize Ubuntu (for one simple example) is loaded with applications that use telemetry.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn to read. What part of "IN HOUSE" don't you understand, dummy!

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Phusion]

All that stuff is easily disabled... and it'd be even easier in Linux.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[FranTaylor]

A vanilla Linux kernel with some packages compiled and installed could be used for very serious things...

The vanilla kernel either fails badly or has many missing features on server systems. Mine will only boot up and run correctly with an enterprise linux like RHEL or CentOS or SLES. With a vanilla kernel just about nothing works right. There are super-critical patches for particular models of RAID controllers, NUMA, etc. that are not in the vanilla kernel.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[EmeraldBot]

The Slackware FAQ still talks about SoundBlaster 16 and old CD-ROM drives. It gives a strong impression that this is not a distro for modern times.

Well evidently, since you haven't even bothered to look at it beyond the home page, you clearly haven't been pressured enough into bothering to do any real research. Slackware is literally just a vanilla Linux kernel and some prebuilt packages of popular programs - that's all it is. No custom this, no custom that, no preset defaults. If the plain Linux kernel isn't stable, reliable, trustworthy and has a large community, then I don't know why you'd think Debian would have that.

Of course, you're actually right in some ways. While it's designed to be simple to modify for what you wish it to be, it really excels at being a personal OS for a single user, one who can mold it into whatever they want. In particular though, it's not suitable for enterprise use, or at least not without some serious custom modding and testing. The packages, while stable, are fairly new, the prebuilt package repository is fairly small (and the unofficial Slackbuilds isn't stable at all), and the whole package managment system in general doesn't really scale well. The difference is, I actually used it heavily a couple years back, before I switched my peronal workstation to FreeBSD, and I found its weak points (and strong ones) through heavy daily interaction. If you're willing to dismiss it simply because of what it looks like alone, you're clearly not the target audience. So go back to Debian, apt-get purge that Systemd, and put back on your beloved sysvinit. Go ahead, it'll be the same as before, it won't have been cursed by thy evil foe then.

But if you can't be bothered to do any sort of serious study whatsoever, then please quit whining like a three year old, and don't bite off someone's head when they gave you a well-intentioned and helpful reccommendation.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[praxis]

Not all serious things are run on servers using RAID and NUMA. In order to discount Slackware from use on any serious thing, you have to disprove it for all serious things, not just one subset.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time it is disabled it is too late.

MS will have collected a ton of data before you get it disabled and there is no guarantee that future updates won't turn it back on.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[__aaclcg7560]

The number one rule regarding Microsoft OSes is not to install the OS with the network cable plugged in. That's the quickest way of getting hacked and compromised before you can get the latest updates to prevent being hacked. Install the OS and patches offline before connecting it to the Internet.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personal OS"... for some definitions of person... My 75+ year old parents won't ever use it, they might use Mint, though. They do know how to use iOS.

Slackware is an OS for hackers (old version of the term), people who are inclined to spend the time learning and tweaking things in something like an OS as well as making a custom home network that behaves exactly how they want.

That is a rare person. It's not to say it's bad to have software that caters to people like you (and me, if I ever had the time), it's fine, and that's why we have so many distros. But you need to see the forest for the trees, the number of distros that need systemd as well as all the other maligned features of newer distros are targeted at people who are confused by public/private key pairs, ifconfig, etc. Some of these people have trouble figuring out which wires go where on the back of their TV despite the color coding.

They need that stuff man, it's good that it exists. And since we're the minority, most distros will be the exact things you don't want.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

We will never use use systemd. We have replaced it by svhost.exe (Microsoft insider).

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd very much consider using it.

Prior to Windows 10, I would be right there with you.

I'll take SystemD over the clusterfuck that is every last piece of software phoning home. Fuck, even reinstalling nVidia drivers yet again results in attempts at contacting vortex-win.data.microsoft.com. Mind you, I'm on Windows 7. And I can no longer safely update without having to manually search strings of numbers to figure out if an update is an actual, useful update versus more crap meant to foist Windows 10 and its accompanying spyware upon me.

But really, SystemD is shit and only BSD can save us now.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[avandesande]

It's not crazy... if they started a business arm with a distro and support like RH it would probably be quite profitable.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[i.r.id10t]

Especially if they could get Office/Outlook/etc. ported to it.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Blaskowicz]

RAID and NUMA are widespread on the cheap Dell servers.

Well, get a Xeon-D and run a PCIe SSD, no NUMA and no RAID. But that's bleeding edge hardware :)

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Barsteward]

1) thats the biggest load of bullshit so far
2) thats the second biggest load of bullshit

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why office? Linux already has better alternatives. No need to regress.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[sparkeyjames]

Bullcrap. I've built a few email servers and firewall boxes running Slackware. A few even have nine nines uptime. They are rock solid and damn near impenetrable. Your only argument is that they may not be great for cloud services and even that is debatable. Do you like the taste of foot?

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[sparkeyjames]

I agree that you should never plug in a new windows box directly you should also never EVER run any windows box without a router box in front of it. Even if you get the windows firewall configured before you plug it in it's still weak sauce compared to a physical firewall router box.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux already has better alternatives.

This had *better* end up +5, Funny.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[lister king of smeg]

Uh ,you do realize Ubuntu (for one simple example) is loaded with applications that use telemetry.

And that is first thing i take care of when i install ubuntu just type "apt-get purge zeitgeist" along with replacing the window manager/desktop environment

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it all wrong.

They started using linux BECAUSE of systemd. Systemd makes linux suck and MS only deals with things that suck.

Give them a distro that doesn't suck and it won't even boot near MS headquarters.

captcha: stoppage

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Blaskowicz]

If Windows 7 does that, it's probably time to upgrade to Vista.
Run it while you still can.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slackware sucks.

Any random distro can do that and do it much easier.

Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[praxis]

Not all serious things run on servers in a data centre. Many people have serious things running on devices that fit in their pockets which don't support RAID or NUMA.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have done the same with far less effort using a proper distro.

Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously suggesting using Vista over Windows 7 now? Blegh, I have that POS on my work laptop, if I had a choice I'd prefer manually checking the updates on 7 are safe than continue using Vista.

Do you blame them?

[Trailer Trash]

I mean, Linux is just full of their patented inventions - hell, they practically wrote the whole thing! They should use it, and proudly!

Re:Do you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you got that backwards!

Re:Do you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cited proof please!

Until then, stay off my lawn!

Blue Screen of Death

[jfdavis668]

The major change is adding the Blue Screen of Death, just to make everyone comfortable with using Linux.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[jones_supa]

Why does Linux not have a user-friendly kernel panic screen, BTW? Serious question. It's pretty random what you get: a sudden reboot, a kernel panic text, or a blank screen. A swooned Tux picture with the text "The Linux kernel has crashed" would look quite professional.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[Anonymous Coward]

You might not be able to read and understand the kernel panic dump, but someone can and will be instrumental to fixing a driver issue or kernel issue.

Professional is not "Oh no, we had an issue :(" in my book.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[jones_supa]

Professional is not "Oh no, we had an issue :(" in my book.

In my book it is much more professional than failing in random ways. Windows writes a kernel dump along the frown anyway, so it's no problem.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[Oligonicella]

Maybe they just wanted to get the most out of the driver they finally found that works correctly with their peripherals.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[gweihir]

Simple: You see it far to rarely to make the effort worthwhile. With Windows, it was frequently enough before Win7 to deserve special consideration. In fact, the only kernel panics I have had on Linux in the last 10 years where when I told the kernel a wrong amount of memory (instead of letting it detect it) and a wrong root device.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux does not "fail randomly". You are confused. Failing randomly is the domain of Windows. Whether you get a stupid splash-sceen, a screen full of hex code, a memdump or all of it at the same time or something else is usually something your distribution maker interferes with. Not "Linux".

Heck, there's even some old patch floating around out there which sends the panic message in morse code through the pc-speaker or blinks it with the keyboard LEDs, in case you don't have a graphics card or its drivers are FUBAR.

Re:Blue Screen of Death

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: You see it far to rarely to make the effort worthwhile. With Windows, it was frequently enough before Win7 to deserve special consideration.

That's because Windows is installed on more machines than any other operating systems in existence.

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

They said Linux was cancer.

Systemd

[snookiex]

Cool. Now they will bundle Clippy into Systemd.

Re:Systemd

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi! You appear to be attempting to boot up! May I give some suggestions for command line kernel options?

Re:Systemd

[halivar]

No, that's not Clippy, that's Grubby.

Linux no longer a threat to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the recent popularity of buggy and slow Android based devices, Microsoft no longer sees Linux as a threat.

Re:Linux no longer a threat to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Linux is not seen as a realistic contender on the desktop anymore, so Microsoft can just take the server parts and safely incorporate them to the company's own product sales ecosystem.

Re: Linux no longer a threat to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Buggy and slow android devices is the fault of whoever decided to use Java. Even with the custom VM Java is for cross-platform ease (developer benefits) and not performance (user benefits).

Get developers willing to do proper native code and your users will be much happier.

Re: Linux no longer a threat to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Linux for the phone OS and C# for the apps, FTW!

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

..subzero temperature was reported in hell today...

The bill?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

...no Windows variant that would fit the bill?

The Bill? Oh, THAT Bill, I got it. Stupid pun.

Xenix

[Anonymous Coward]

Way Back Machine: in the 1980s Microsoft had a multi-user version of Unix they distributed under the name of Xenix. It ran on (among others) Tandy Radio Shack computers with the Motorola 68000 chip. It was a true (AT&T) Unix variant.

Can we call MS for LInux support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there is commercial support from Microsoft for THEIR linux?

Re:Can we call MS for LInux support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

How comes nobody already talked about MSLinux ?

[lord_rob the only on]

That distro was about to be released more than one decade ago (2003) on the GPL (Gates Private License).

Re:How comes nobody already talked about MSLinux ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That distro was about to be released more than one decade ago (2003) on the GPL (Gates Private License).

Because this is real and that was a joke. And that joke wasn't done very well and is so old it isn't even amusing anymore, much less funny.

Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Lucifer has been heard complaining of the sudden cold.

I just want to give a shout out to whomever decided to write this. It took me a few seconds to figure out why this was written, but then I started laughing. Good show. Good show.

That explains...

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains why they had to lay off so many people. They were planning to use Linux on their cloud servers and had to make room in their yearly budget to support the immense high TOC when using Linux.

So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Viol8]

..is fine, right? When you're trying to sell Windows to the public as a one size fits all OS yet its apparently not good enough to run the network of their own Premier cloud service thats not a problem?

Give me a break, this has embarrassing U-turn written all over it.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[neilo_1701D]

Your comment would be correct 5 years ago.

Now, cloud services are the thing.

As an example, the premier ERP solution that Microsoft has, Dynamics AX, is currently totally tied to Windows. The next version, AX 7, changes the game completely. The rich client - the bit the user interacts with - is gone, replaced with a browser-agnostic UI (sporting a Windows 8 Start screen look-and-feel, but that's another story). The server and database components are now running on Azure. Windows has effectively vanished from the equation. And this the flagship ERP application.

For another example, look at Microsoft Office.

Microsoft is no longer the company that makes Windows and defends the Windows franchise; it's now services, services, services, and Windows with stand-alone Office etc.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[macs4all]

Your comment would be correct 5 years ago.

Now, cloud services are the thing.

As an example, the premier ERP solution that Microsoft has, Dynamics AX, is currently totally tied to Windows. The next version, AX 7, changes the game completely. The rich client - the bit the user interacts with - is gone, replaced with a browser-agnostic UI (sporting a Windows 8 Start screen look-and-feel, but that's another story). The server and database components are now running on Azure. Windows has effectively vanished from the equation. And this the flagship ERP application.

For another example, look at Microsoft Office.

Microsoft is no longer the company that makes Windows and defends the Windows franchise; it's now services, services, services, and Windows with stand-alone Office etc.

As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is being pushed as a client and server OS, not a SDN platform. While there have been some routing and remote access features built in to Windows over the years it was never intended to be a Network OS, sure it could likely be modified to work as one, but that would be more time and money than taking something such as Vyatta (VyOS) and extending it to add in the couple extra features or hooks they need.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[neilo_1701D]

As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).

You think? I always saw NAV as the more fun EFP solution, in terms of ways to get data in and out of the system. Some of the NAV concepts, like publishing a table or a class as an instant WebServices endpoint, would have to almost vanish in an Azure-ized version. Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[PPH]

Sort of like that supermodel you take out to dinner. Who just nibbles on a salad and pushes the steak and lobster away. And then goes home and wolfs down a few pints of Haagen Dazs.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[macs4all]

As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).

You think? I always saw NAV as the more fun EFP solution, in terms of ways to get data in and out of the system. Some of the NAV concepts, like publishing a table or a class as an instant WebServices endpoint, would have to almost vanish in an Azure-ized version. Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?

I've never messed around in AX; so I'll take your word that NAV is "more fun". But, MS is slowly but surely pounding the "fun" out of NAV, that's for sure!

Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?

Well, for one, it keeps me fed... ;-)

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[avandesande]

Really? I suppose they should port windows OS onto CISCO routers to maintain 'purity'.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Ravaldy]

Where did you get this idea? Windows has always catered to the majority. They didn't stay you could launch a space shuttle with their OS. Use the right tools for the right job. In this case Linux was that tool to break the gap.

You should be happy MS used Linux for something within their critical structure. After all, Linux is the perfect OS to solve problems that require infinite flexibility. Linux is also amazing when packaged for specific hardware. Raspberry Pi, mobile phones... That's where Linux has shinned the most in the last 5 years.

Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Type44Q]

I trust you're getting compensated for your attempts to change the subject?

Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Anonymous Coward]

Change the subject from what? They occupy totally different niches.

Microsoft isn't selling Windows as the OS for all purposes and all machines. Your claims to that effect are disingenuous and misleading. It is a consumer and corporate end-user OS with very specific and strict system requirements, and on a system that supports it Linux isn't even close to offering a comparable experience. About receiving compensation, I also invoke the 'whoever smelt it, dealt it' rule and suspect that you are here specifically to inflict harm on Microsoft's public image.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[toadlife]

It would probably run better than IOS.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[steveha]

I have worked at Microsoft, and they are all about eating their own dog food. Everyone at Microsoft uses Microsoft products for everything.

And, let me remind you of the fiasco where Microsoft bought Hotmail and switched its servers from UNIX (FreeBSD on front-end servers and some Solaris database servers) to Windows. They had to throw more hardware at the operation and still had problems, but they did it, and they knew going in that they would have more problems with Windows.

But now we are talking about Azure. Microsoft is seriously going for market share in cloud hosting, and most of the customers they are trying to win over are already running their stuff on Linux. So it's not really that embarrassing for Azure to run on Linux... I attended the Linuxfest Northwest conference this year, and Microsoft Azure had a booth in the vendor room where they had signs saying "Microsoft <heart> Linux".

Also, Microsoft is going after the Docker market. They are whipping together something like Docker for running Windows server apps in the cloud, but meanwhile they are all in on supporting Linux Docker apps for Azure. They have ported the Docker admin tools to run on a Windows machine, so that people can control Docker from a Windows machine (while the Docker is still running on Linux, you understand).

Give me a break, this has embarrassing U-turn written all over it.

I disagree about the "embarrassing" part. Microsoft has, in the past, acted like it could control the industry. One reason it acted that way was that it used to succeed more often than not in actually controlling the industry. But it's far too late for Microsoft to kill Linux; they are going to have to co-exist with Linux forever now, and it's not embarrassing for them to act like it.

I remember, about seven years ago, seeing a video at Microsoft that showed a skinny kid on a skateboard as a visual metaphor for Linux. I was amused... did they really think they could convince IT guys to choose Windows over Linux just by sneering at Linux in a marketing video? The Microsoft that made that video could never make its own distro.

In recent years, Microsoft has not shown much ability to adapt. Look at how horrible their strategy was with portable music players and then with mobile devices. But now, the Azure guys are just doing whatever makes the most sense for them, and it is politically possible at Microsoft? That's actually a good omen for Microsoft's future; at least they are not denying reality as much as they used to.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[dwywit]

That reminds me of the story Frank Soltis ("father" of the AS400) told about one of IBM's customers. They ran AS400s for their distribution network. Then they decided to switch to Windows servers - and after 12 months or so, switched back to AS400s, because Windows just couldn't cut it.

The customer was Microsoft.

https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~ibc...

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break, this has embarrassing U-turn written all over it.

It's only a U-turn if Microsoft has previously stated that "of course you should run SDNs on a Microsoft Windows platform. It's the COOLEST." Since I haven't ever heard anything resembling that said, the worst you can really say is that they're eating a little crow after fighting so hard *against* Linux.

If you've ever looked at the various versions and SKUs of Windows that Microsoft sells, you'd also know that it's most certainly NEVER been pitched as a "one size fits all" affair. It's been very much a "choose the version that's right for your needs," solution.

Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food

[cthulhu11]

Back in the day my employer provided a certain service to MSFT. They had us spend half a million bucks designing and implementing a scaled-up feature-increased system, then they decided to insource on NT because we weren't running it. We could have forged headers to masquerade but no. So we were screwed and their insourcing was a disaster for millions of users.

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[shutdown -p now]

U-turn, perhaps. Embarrassing? More like long overdue. Good engineering is about using the best fit for the task at hand, not about shoving balls into square holes for the sake of politics.

Let me show you something. This is a Microsoft product that runs on Linux (IPython/Jupyter notebooks specifically, that is). It's not even a customized distro, just plain Ubuntu running in Docker containers. And it's not something that runs under the hood, because in notebooks you can run shell commands and access the file system, so it's very much visible that it's Linux. You can literally just do "!uname -a" in the notebook and see for yourself.

So why is it Linux? First, because this is built on top of containers, which have been a Linux feature for quite a while now and had time to mature and stabilize, but is a brand spanking new feature in Windows. And second, because people - data scientists and statisticians - who actually use those notebooks expect a Unix-like system; they have shell scripts and such that they use on their Macs, and they expect all this stuff to more or less just work.

Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food

[spongman]

Oh that supermodel!

Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone at Microsoft uses Microsoft products for everything.

Well, maybe once they finally finished covertly donating their Vaxen anyway. Oops, I wasn't supposed to mention those!

All I can say

[Anonymous Coward]

Cats and Dogs living together in sin!!!!

Next port Office to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...

Re:Next port Office to Linux

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...

I got brain cancer from just reading your post, so I concur. The mental hospitals would be bursting at the seams with IT people, all of whom would be gibbering madly and frothing at the mouth.

Re:Next port Office to Linux

[FranTaylor]

Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...

I got brain cancer from just reading your post, so I concur. The mental hospitals would be bursting at the seams with IT people, all of whom would be gibbering madly and frothing at the mouth.

Why? All this microsoft stuff is already running on OSX. Porting from BSD to linux should not be a big deal.

Re:Next port Office to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...

I got brain cancer from just reading your post, so I concur. The mental hospitals would be bursting at the seams with IT people, all of whom would be gibbering madly and frothing at the mouth.

Why? All this microsoft stuff is already running on OSX. Porting from BSD to linux should not be a big deal.

I don't know, would GNUStep libraries work on such a port?

Re:Next port Office to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

So finally there would be a Linux desktop UI worth using? Count me in.

Re:Next port Office to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go away you ignorant blowhard. OSX is not BSD, that's just something butt hurt BSD-fans claim to sooth their bruised little egos, and that's just the beginning of your ignorance.

Re: A gnu!

[Flavianoep]

I saw a gnu in the Microsoft's page!

And in other news...

[MajorBlunder]

Dante's Inferno has been renamed Dante's Beer Cooler.

Ha ha, I love it

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro

Ha ha, I love April 1st on slashdot, what with all the crazy, made-up stories and stuff.

Year of Linux on the

[penguinoid]

Looks like it's the year of Linux on Microsoft's internal servers.

Maybe they'll be releasing a desktop version in a few years. I mean think about it:
* Windows 7 -- finally something to upgrade to from XP, took them long enough
* Windows 8 -- nope, sorry not a masochist
* Windows 8.1 -- ug, it has an 8 in it
* Windows 9 -- probably would have been a good version, too bad they skipped it
* Windows 10 -- malware, complete with spyware features and trying to trick people into installing it. Pretty soon if you forget to uncheck the box when installing your next Java update, you'll end up with a new Windows 10 install.
* Windows 11: Revenge of the Penguins -- now that sounds cool.

Linux has so many varriations

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shows that Linux may not be on the desktop of many PC's. But it has some good uses and even Microsoft appears to recognize its potential. Good for Microsoft to be open minded about what to use.

But TCO?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the TCO for Linux made it noncompetitive with Windows.

Seems Microsoft should have run the numbers, I hear they can get a team from Microsoft to show them the folly of their ways.

Re: But TCO?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

you refer to the bs they tell their victims.

You're an idiot

[fisted]

That means I'm responding to your thread topic.

No shit? I thought that was already clear due to your command being attached to theirs.

The only use for subjects in comments are to deliver subtle or not so subtle out-of-band insults.

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

All cloud providers offer both Windows and Linux VMs, so MS has to do the same. The distro they made is just meant for the customers that need Linux hosting. As they had to tweak their Linux to conform to their Azure infrastructure, they made their own distro. Nothing to see here. Move along people.

Maybe it is just a Cisco OS

[Anonymous Coward]

All new Cisco gear now runs Linux, so maybe if Microsoft got something from that small company that may know a thing or two about networking, that's the reason.

Of course it's plausible

[Etherwalk]

I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.

Of course it's plausible. It's radically different than how most MSFT products are designed, but they still have a huge amount of money and a lot of great engineers. If they decided to put out the best linux distro in the world, they would have a good shot.

Bad memories

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of that technique Microsoft used to use; it was something like:

Embrace
Extend

and then something else but I can't quite remember.

Re:FreeBSD networking good in general. For specifi

[Anonymous Coward]

What networking companies use FreeBSD?

Cisco? No
Ciena? No
F5? No
Erickson? No
Juniper? No

Spyvertising business model

[istartedi]

MS is in the process of switching from a "software as product" to "customer as product" or "spyvertising" business model.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who has read Satya Nadella's speeches about the direction in which he wants to take the company.

Re:hopefully Lennart is rolling over into his grav

[gweihir]

Now that would be pretty fascinating: MS going for quality instead of hype.

And in still other news...

[rgbatduke]

... the Pope announces that from now on all religious observances in monasteries will be adopted from those of the Unitarian Universalist sort-of-religion. "Hey, it's completely in-house -- our monks will get a lot more work and meditation in not having to waste so much time chanting and going to mass all of the time," he is quoted as saying. "In a few cases it is just plain easier to use the rituals of other religions where using our own would involve a major expenditure or loss of efficiency."

Meantime, President Obama has admitted that he gets most of his best ideas from the John Locke Foundation. "It isn't like their ideas are proprietary," he explained to the press in a surprise announcement. "Besides, every blind squirrel finds an acorn."

There is no word yet upon whether or not ISIS has subcontracted their intelligence service to Mossad as rumored, largely because it has proven nearly impossible to determine whether or not ISIS is aware of the concept of intelligence at all. The Israeli government is playing coy with the issue, refusing to confirm or deny the possibility that ISIS was impressed with the efficiency with which Mossad had infiltrated its ranks. An unnamed ISIS jihadist, when approached by a journalist, was rumored to have whispered to the journalist that they were actually an Israeli intelligence agent right before they cut off the head of the journalist, but the logical contradictions inherent in the rumor make it likely that it was deliberately planted by ISIS...

Re:And in still other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are joking but if ISIS actually contracted with any government, they would implode because it directly violates their dogma.

They are an apocalyptic cult that considers themselves to be top of the food chain. All others need to bow to them.

middleware...

[Anonymous Coward]

In essence, Linux has become the mother of all middlewares.

You slap it on top of any kind of IaaS, and then shovel on top some SaaS.

It 's a virus

[barryvoeten]

I remember some MS big shot saying that. Linux, GPL is a virus.

They must have found themselves infected by now.

Actually Juniper: yes, Ericsson: yes.

[raymorris]

Actually Ericsson and Juniper ARE FreeBSD based.

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about mass-produced units created by network hardware companies. Obviously companies like Cisco and F5 are going to have their own networking code, using the stock OS for management functions.

I was thinking more build-your-own systems, or low production run systems, where you'd use the existing network stack in the OS. The BSDs in general have strong and robust networking. Linux may be more flexible.

Needed for compatibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

"ACS also allows us to share the same software stack across hardware from multiple switch vendors."

In other words, building it on Linux helps ensure compatibility with all the network device vendors because that's what they use. So rather than rebuild the wheel, just use the wheel everyone else uses.

Why are people surprise

[w1zz4]

It is no suprise for me at all, in fact the other way around would have been a big big surprise... Microsoft don't have any OS suitable for Data Center. Windows Server is suitable for SMB customers only...

How pervasive

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed

Old saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

--Henry Spencer

It's not an operating system

[Anonymous Coward]

" is a cross-platform modular operating system for data center networking built on Linux" - that's Openstack.

Can't spy on themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many Funny's in this "story". Damn. hahahaha. shit. wooooooooo

This backstabbing weasel ass company will sill their parents to collect more almighty dollars.

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html
http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again-3569376/
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2956574/microsoft-subnet/windows-10-privacy-spyware-settings-user-agreement.html

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/22/nsa-windows-8-exploit/
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/07/11/microsoft-gave-the-nsa-direct-backdoor-access-to-outlook-skype/
http://winsupersite.com/windows-10/how-stop-windows-10-upgrade-downloading-your-system
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/195592-with-windows-10-microsoft-could-move-to-a-subscription-based-model
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/205320-microsoft-windows-10-will-be-the-last-version-of-windows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GU5uv28a3I
http://techrights.org/2015/07/31/vista-10-anticompetitive/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwRYyWn7BEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gghj03J_ri0
http://localghost.org/posts/a-traffic-analysis-of-windows-10
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/28/microsoft-intensifies-data-collection-on-windows-7-and-8-systems/

THIS.
https://gitlab.com/windowslies/blockwindows

nice

[Norsys]

Woot

Steve Ballmer's son :P

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine Steve Ballmer's son loving Linux. It's pretty good script for a movie!

Re: So not publically not eating your own dog foo

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, never was there an army of shills for corporations to spot. i swear.

Probably a platform for SatNad's data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Slashdot became shit after Dice Holdings took over, as demonstrated by these clickbait crap posts.

Developers were right to dump Sourceforge and move on to Github.

hahaha it's the natural flow of things

[Anonymous Coward]

yes use Linux for advanced tasks

What is it called?

[Teresita]

My guess is Microsoft Embedded Enterprise Linux for Workgroups 2015 Professional Edition Service Pack 1 Update 2

My F5s all say "Linux"

[daboochmeister]

But that's the control plane anyway. And dollars to donuts, that's what MS is doing with Linux as well.