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

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

[tomhath]

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

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.

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: 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: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: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