Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro

Posted by Soulskill on from the wait-what dept.

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.

147 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 2, Funny

    Science has indeed gone too far!

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      Just like these comments.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  2. MS uses what works by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: MS uses what works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I do not use MS Windows in my house either.

    2. Re:MS uses what works by neilo_1701D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:MS uses what works by bug1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No reason not to use Linux.

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

    4. Re:MS uses what works by spacepimp · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

    5. Re:MS uses what works by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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... ?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re: MS uses what works by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Place nail here >+
    7. Re:MS uses what works by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:MS uses what works by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:MS uses what works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:MS uses what works by geekmux · · Score: 1

      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...

    11. Re:MS uses what works by number6x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:MS uses what works by Bert64 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re: MS uses what works by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Oh, someone will distribute it.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    14. Re:MS uses what works by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      All your servers are belong to us.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    15. Re:MS uses what works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:MS uses what works by macs4all · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re: MS uses what works by unixisc · · Score: 2

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

    18. Re:MS uses what works by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    19. Re:MS uses what works by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    20. Re:MS uses what works by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      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?

    21. Re:MS uses what works by armanox · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    22. Re:MS uses what works by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      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

    23. Re:MS uses what works by gweihir · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:MS uses what works by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    25. Re:MS uses what works by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    26. Re:MS uses what works by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    27. Re:MS uses what works by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      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.

    28. Re:MS uses what works by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    29. Re:MS uses what works by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    30. Re:MS uses what works by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

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

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    31. Re:MS uses what works by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re:MS uses what works by hawk · · Score: 1

      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

    33. Re:MS uses what works by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    34. Re:MS uses what works by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    35. Re:MS uses what works by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  3. Wrong choice by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Wrong choice by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Wrong choice by coolmoe2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re: Wrong choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Wrong choice by Burdell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: Wrong choice by tomhath · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    6. Re: Wrong choice by morcego · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

      --
      morcego
    7. Re:Wrong choice by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Linux compatibility is irrelevant to this discussion.

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

    8. Re:Wrong choice by gweihir · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Wrong choice by machine321 · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re: Wrong choice by goy.ben.regesh · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. Clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re: Clever by Type44Q · · Score: 1

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

  5. This proves Linux sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:This proves Linux sucks by gweihir · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re: This proves Linux sucks by Type44Q · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:This proves Linux sucks by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re: This proves Linux sucks by gweihir · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Re:Satan by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, Satan runs BeOSelbub.

  7. Not the first time... by Jahat · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Sola Scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Sola Christus
    1. Re:Not the first time... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Not the first time... by moehoward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    3. Re:Not the first time... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Not the first time... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Not the first time... by present_arms · · Score: 1

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

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    6. Re:Not the first time... by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:Not the first time... by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Not the first time... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:Not the first time... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      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.

  8. Not MS's first Linux by mschaffer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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).

    1. Re:Not MS's first Linux by Lisias · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  9. FreeBSD networking good in general. For specific by raymorris · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. So where can I download MS-Linux? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't find it on torrent sites.

    1. Re:So where can I download MS-Linux? by mitzoe · · Score: 1

      http://www.mslinux.org/

    2. Re:So where can I download MS-Linux? by msimm · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Quack, quack.
  11. If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by coolmoe2 · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by iampiti · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Phusion · · Score: 1

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

      --
      640k ought to be enough for anyone.
    5. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by EmeraldBot · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    7. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by praxis · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    10. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by avandesande · · Score: 1

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

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    12. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    13. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      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 :)

    14. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Barsteward · · Score: 1, Informative

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

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    15. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    16. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by sparkeyjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    17. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by sparkeyjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    19. Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

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

    20. Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. by praxis · · Score: 1

      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.

  12. Do you blame them? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  13. Blue Screen of Death by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Blue Screen of Death by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Blue Screen of Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Blue Screen of Death by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Blue Screen of Death by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Blue Screen of Death by gweihir · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  14. Re:Satan by Tx · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  15. Systemd by snookiex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cool. Now they will bundle Clippy into Systemd.

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    1. Re:Systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Systemd by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  16. Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  17. The bill? by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

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

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

  18. Xenix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  19. How comes nobody already talked about MSLinux ? by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 1

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

  20. So not publically not eating your own dog food by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ..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.

    1. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by neilo_1701D · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by macs4all · · Score: 1

      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).

    3. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by PPH · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by macs4all · · Score: 1

      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... ;-)

    6. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by avandesande · · Score: 1

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

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food by Type44Q · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by toadlife · · Score: 1

      It would probably run better than IOS.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    10. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by steveha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    11. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by dwywit · · Score: 2, Funny

      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...

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    12. Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food by spongman · · Score: 1

      Oh that supermodel!

  21. Re: A gnu! by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

    I saw a gnu in the Microsoft's page!

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  22. And in other news... by MajorBlunder · · Score: 1

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

    --

    "I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."

  23. Re:Next port Office to Linux by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  24. Ha ha, I love it by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro

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

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  25. You're an idiot by fisted · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  26. Re:Next port Office to Linux by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Of course it's plausible by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    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.

  29. Spyvertising business model by istartedi · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  30. Re:Satan by Holi · · Score: 2

    Pretty sure he runs BSD.

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

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  31. Re:Speaking of the devil by gweihir · · Score: 1

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

    Hehehehe, nice!

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Re:hopefully Lennart is rolling over into his grav by gweihir · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. And in still other news... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    ... 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...

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  34. Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux by gangien · · Score: 1

    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.

  35. It 's a virus by barryvoeten · · Score: 1

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

    They must have found themselves infected by now.

  36. Actually Juniper: yes, Ericsson: yes. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. Re:But Hackers and Pirates use Linux by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  38. Why are people surprise by w1zz4 · · Score: 1

    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...

  39. nice by Norsys · · Score: 1

    Woot

    --
    http://alamar.webege.com
  40. What is it called? by Teresita · · Score: 1

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

  41. My F5s all say "Linux" by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci