Microsoft Has Created Its Own FreeBSD (microsoft.com)

Simon Sharwood, writing for The Register: Microsoft has published its own distribution of FreeBSD 10.3 in order to make the OS available and supported in Azure. Jason Anderson, principal PM manager at Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center says Redmond "took on the work of building, testing, releasing and maintaining the image" so it could "ensure our customers have an enterprise SLA for their FreeBSD VMs running in Azure". Microsoft did so "to remove that burden" from the FreeBSD Foundation, which relies on community contributions. Redmond is not keeping its work on FreeBSD to itself: Anderson says "the majority of the investments we make at the kernel level to enable network and storage performance were up-streamed into the FreeBSD 10.3 release, so anyone who downloads a FreeBSD 10.3 image from the FreeBSD Foundation will get those investments from Microsoft built in to the OS."

Comments

GBSD

[phrostie]

does this mean they will replace GWX with a Get FreeBSD button?
I might give that a try.

I have run a bsd in a while.

Re:GBSD

[PRMan]

No, but all BSDs will now try to get you to "upgrade" to BSD 10.4, now with Telemetry!

Re:GBSD

[thegarbz]

I have run a bsd in a while.

I could care less what you have run.

Re:GBSD

[93 Escort Wagon]

I could care less what you have run.

Attempting To Suppress.... Grammar... Nazi... Impulses...

Norman, Correlate!

Re:GBSD

[Darinbob]

It's only GetFreeBSD until July, then it will be GetBSD.

Re:GBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

So you do care! That's nice.

Re:GBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

He cared enough to comment, but that's all.

Re:GBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, M$ bootlicker.

Re:GBSD

[thegarbz]

Read the context of what I was replying to before you consider my sentence grammatically incorrect :-)

Re:GBSD

[Godwin O'Hitler]

I didn't see what you did there.

Re:GBSD

[slashdotwannabe]

Specifically how much less could you care?

Re:GBSD

[thegarbz]

I could care less about the use of have vs haven't ;-)

Re: GBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not specific.

Re: GBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you really that fucking stupid?

Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

I created my own FreeBSD.
And my dog.
And my priest.
I think the fire ants outside are making their own FreeBSD too, because they are pretty busy doing something.

Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[fahrbot-bot]

...so anyone who downloads a FreeBSD 10.3 image from the FreeBSD Foundation will get those investments from Microsoft built in to the OS.

Clippy: I see you're running FreeBSD. Would you like to upgrade to Windows 10 now or reschedule for later?

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Still less intrusive than systemd.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

People are still laughing at this kind of crap?

If you're still making Clippy jokes, you might be a neckbeard.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[crtreece]

According to the article (I know, I know), the changes were pushed back upstream and are in FBSD proper as well.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[macs4all]

I can see it now: RMS launching a new Stand-up Comedy career...

"You might be a neckbeard, if..."

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[ShanghaiBill]

the changes were pushed back upstream

Most of the changes were pushed upstream, but not all. If they were all pushed, and accepted, then there would be no reason for Microsoft to have their own version.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[crtreece]

Anderson says "the majority of the investments we make at the kernel level to enable network and storage performance were up-streamed into the FreeBSD 10.3 release"

I glance over the "majority" part on first read. I'm now curious about what exactly got held out of their commit to the upstream.

Re: Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh this could be fun... let's some up with nerd redneck jokes.

If your family Tree kinda looks more like a Graph... with a few cycles... then you just might be a Silicon Valley Redneck.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[bondsbw]

The wording is not quite clear whether Microsoft withheld those parts or whether FreeBSD simply didn't pull them. Likely it was a bunch of cloud stuff that doesn't make sense to use outside of Azure.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't he have to be able to, oh, I dunno, stand up?

OHHHHH neckbeards.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Marginal Coward]

Funny you should mention that, I hear he's just been booked into the GNU/Comedy Store in Cambridge. (His contract called for the venue to change their name rather than simply omit the brown M&Ms.)

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Bengie]

They weren't pushed in time. Changes are pushed, but not all made it into 10.4.

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Darinbob]

The funniest segment in Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (NPR) was when they were making Clippy jokes, then Paula Poundstone pipes up and say "um... who's Clippy?"

Re:Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[macs4all]

The funniest segment in Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (NPR) was when they were making Clippy jokes, then Paula Poundstone pipes up and say "um... who's Clippy?"

That's kinda amazing.I always figured she was kind of a geek.

Oh, nevermind...

Re: Investments from Microsoft built in to the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they remember to upload the bugs?

It's dead for sure now

[inode_buddha]

Not just pining for the fjords.

Mars attacks

[Anonymous Coward]

ack, ack ack ack,,, ack ack (Do not run, we ARE your FRIENDS) ack ack ack.

Aha

[Anonymous Coward]

So this explains all the hardcore OpenBSD trolls lately. They're just anti-MS trolls in disguise waging a campaign against FreeBSD.

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

MSBSD installs Windows 10 while you're asleep, and then sells all your data to the highest bidder.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes, but there's a option to turn that off. It's in the cellar...without a staircase...or lights...in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leapard."

Re:It's a trap!

[Yvan256]

So that means a totally free and legit Windows 10 install for those of us who never used Windows before?

I'll take it!

The worst Microsoft could do is spy on which games I play.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

leopard

Re:It's a trap!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

... and then sells all your data to the highest bidder.

Why does Android get away with this?

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can run AOSP or a ROM without GSF if you want to?

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not, and I *really* wish people would realise that

a) a desktop computer or a server is an entirely different realm than a silly phone or tablet, and

b) "STEVE DID IT TOO!!" wasn't a valid defence even in kindergarten.

It's tiresome.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your silly phone or tablet has a ton of personal information your desktop likely doesn't have AND goes with you when you shit.

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leppard (Def or otherwise)

Re: It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not, and I *really* wish people would realise that

Well actually it does, if you look at the stories posted here you will see anything about Windows 10 ends up just devolving into a vitriolic circle-jerk of Microsoft hate on the idea that they are "selling your data" (even though that isnt true, where can I -- or anybody for that matter -- buy it and what can I buy?) and invading your privacy.

There is this idea that the start menu is full of ads, which is rubbish. There is one, they call it a "suggestion" and you can turn it off in control panel. For a "news for nerds" site that is hypercritical of everything you lot certainly seem willing to become completely ignorant and stupid whenever Microsoft does anything. Apparently "technically minded" people that can't fathom simple settings and are more interested in vocally whining than saying "hey maybe we could figure out a solution"...though this is par for the course these days and we even see it in the Linux community with projects like systemd.

a) a desktop computer or a server is an entirely different realm than a silly phone or tablet

Right, a phone is a *way* more serious thing to have compromised, for most people it's something you carry with you everywhere, carries your photos, it's the primary communications device, often used to pay for things and do banking on.

Re:It's a trap!

[silentcoder]

You take your phone with you when you shit ? Remind me to never, ever call you.

Smart

[ErichTheRed]

The interesting thing is that you would never see this happen under previous leadership. Forget the Windows 10 mess, even forget Microsoft selling one-off software at all. They are absolutely committed to using Azure to become the next IBM. The reason why IBM is still alive is because they draw massive monthly revenue from the mainframe business. You don't just buy a mainframe and a z/OS license as a one-time thing. You buy the hardware, the licenses, plus a huge monthly maintenance charge, _plus_ a pay-by-the-MIPS charge to use the hardware. IBM maintains the system for you, sends minions to replace parts, gives you access to upgrades, etc. for this fee. In an environment like this, it makes perfect sense to allow customers to run whatever they want as long as they run it on Azure. Microsoft will be the toll collector for anything their customers choose to migrate there. I'm working on a big Azure migration/rebuild project, and it's so obvious that Microsoft is done pushing their own software...as long as you rent their infrastructure.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM maintains the system for you

That is the way of IBM. There was a small period where they did not have this going on very well. But they are back into it heavy duty. There was a time when you rented particular instructions from them. This goes all the way back to the 1930s. It is the Ma-Bell way of computing. You rent everything and own nothing. It is why the micro computer revolution destroyed IBM.

Now that everything is 'the cloud' the old ways are coming back into fashion.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember xenix? That was from the 1980's.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes you wonder, did they own the database of undesirables they created during the holocaust?

Re:Smart

[AtariEric]

It is why the micro computer revolution destroyed IBM.

Ironic, considering IBM's role in creating a massively popular microcomputing platform.

Re:Smart

[worldtech-a3x]

M$

Yes it's good to see positive comments. MS has been evil for so long, I expect only evil from them. I will check out the Azure platform anyway.

Re:Smart

[WheezyJoe]

So, Microsoft is headed full circle, with the cloud as the new mainframe? In the day, they nearly wiped out the IBM model (and IBM with it); now they're aiming to be the next IBM.
Amazing.
IBM wasn't too good at the consumer end, because they figured out which side of the bread got buttered. Will Microsoft do better? or is the X-Box doomed and desktop Windows 10 going to more and more resemble a thin-client X terminal (and Scott McNealy goes, "dammit, that was my idea!")

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Scroll down towards the end.. its there..

Re:Smart

[jedidiah]

It really wasn't terribly popular until someone cloned it and took it out of the hands of IBM.

Re:Smart

[RabidReindeer]

It is why the micro computer revolution destroyed IBM.

Ironic, considering IBM's role in creating a massively popular microcomputing platform.

But they didn't. Microcomputing was doing just fine before IBM entered the market. What IBM did was put the stamp of "business respectability" on microcomputing. Because back then a Data Processing PHB could have a complete lobotomy and still prosper because IBM would tell him what to do.

Re:Smart

[Darinbob]

The original IBM was a trap too. The difference was that everyone knew it and IBM wasn't trying very hard to hide it, and there was no significant competition doing the same thing. With Microsoft they are constantly trying to hide their trap, and the competition does things better much of the time. The embrace and extend comes from seeing potential customers (that MS thinks are rightfully theirs) going off and doing their own thing, so Microsoft tries to get their foot in the door and then pull the customers back their way.

Like the unwanted guy showing up at the neighborhood game...
MS: Hey guys, I wanna play your game too. See, I brought my own glove!
Players: This is basketball, you don't need a glove.
MS: Oh, that's good. Anyway, here are the rules of how we're going to play.
Players: Sorry, we're using the standard rules.
MS: I hate basketball anyway. Stupid game. anyway you should try my jBasket game, it uses gloves!

Re:Smart

[Darinbob]

The history of computing has been a fight between centralized control versus user control.
Mainframes with a priesthood (mortals are not allowed to touch the big blue iron box).
Mortal users start buying minicomputers for their own department use. A local priesthood is set up to manage access to them.
Company says that multiple department priesthoods is clumsy, so central priesthood is put in charge of all departmental minis.
Mortal users start buying microcomputers for their own office or lab use. Interns are hired to maintain and dust them.
Central priesthood sets up a standardized software licensing group, to verify that no one is using unapproved software.
PCs become more ubiquitous, even in the offices of computer illiterates.
Central priesthood demands that no one can connect to the internet unless the priesthood managers their computers.
Users start getting email on their mobile phones
Priesthood demands that monitoring services be put onto all of the phones.
The big blue iron box is no longer present but the priesthood remains.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that end users should be responsible for their own network security these days?

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

The old line back then was: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. Unfortunately for some, they kept saying that and acting that way long after IBM became largely irrelevant to most business operations outside of the back office. They did the PC, but it was overpriced and underpowered compared to many other business PCs at the time and made it big mainly because of the IBM name and being sold as part of enterprise data processing systems.

The comment about PCs not really taking over until the clones arrived is perceptive - only larger businesses could afford the IBM machines in even a remotely effective configuration (XT, AT, etc.), so the Rest of Us had to wait until the clones arrived. Until then, CP/M, TRSDOS & its clones, XENIX, and Apple DOS (OK, somewhere, somebody was probably trying to use a PET for something other than a prop in Wonder Woman) did the job. I'm into trailing edge technology, so my R/S Model 1 didn't get replaced with a clone until about 1990.

Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Originally, the first TCP/IP stack and some command line TCP/IP tools (ftp.exe) were from BSD. Eventually Microsoft wrote it's own stack and tools.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[casings]

This explains why they have a hosts file in an etc directory in %SYSTEMROOT%\System32\drivers.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

I took them a while, but it's nice to see them giving back to the *BSD community :-P

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

One might see that as more evidence of the failure of BSD's license model.

Linux's licensing is really more restrictive in ways, yet look how far that's progressed in the corporate world. FreeBSD? This is the first time any major company has announced using FreeBSD for _anything_ in years...on Azure. The OS is now the "stack" and that can be anything you want, as long as you're paying Microsoft your required taxes for the month...

Microsoft adopting a product usually means that product's lifespan is either about to get very short or...well, that's pretty much it these days.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been similar code from Microsoft in the Linux kernel for years now.

Welcome to 2009. Enjoy your stay!

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you seriously NOT know this? It's common knowledge since the NT days.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Are you saying no one uses BSD or no one uses BSD on Azure?

If you mean the former, think of all the iOS, OSX (err, macOS), tvOS, and watchOS devices? If having billions of devices is a failure, not sure what you'd call success. If you think the latter, well, I can also say that there's no Linux running on iOS. Any new proprietary platform may not run all apps or tools at first.

FreeBSD had a couple things happen to it that didn't happen to Linux. It got sued by AT&T. The F.U.D. of that slowed things (and actually Linus wrote Linux from scratch because he wanted a cleanroom UNIX, because of the FUD). And it had one of it's best developers leave because of technical direction. (Imagine if Alan Cox or Linus left years ago). Both slowed it down, and neither has anything at all to do with the license issue.

Not saying that license issue has nothing to do with it. It has. But think about perl, and apache, and all the other things on a license-more-like-bsd. License is not the only reason that Linux is on more devices. But you're comparing billions of BSD based devices to more billions of Linux devices. Neither is a failure.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us aren't that old, bro.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the hosts file is there is for POSIX compatibility which was a requirement for some US gov contracts, IIRC.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux also appeared before FreeBSD/NetBSD did by a couple years. That probably made a difference too.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Darinbob]

Overall though, BSD (open/net/free) is a more stable than Linux. Linux changes the APIs a lot, different distributions do things in different ways, whereas the BSD today pretty much runs similar to how it did ten years ago. The BSD source code for utilities is also a lot easier to read and understand than the GNU alternatives, and simpler, and you can modify the code without sharing your changes which is vital for many companies. But Linux has the marketing, if the masses have heard of it they assume it's a synonym for "Unix", or think that BSD is just another Linux distro.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but 386BSD was only a few months behind the initial release of Linux.

And it was a full operating system (meaning userland and libraries) which Linux wasn't yet.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[exomondo]

think of all the iOS, OSX (err, macOS), tvOS, and watchOS devices?

Not to mention the tens of millions of playstation 4s.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Excessive, pointless use of all-caps: a clear sign of autism.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, GPL is just for greedy fucktards who think their shit doesn't stink and expect that they can write a few lines of code then the rest of the world owes them anything else that ever gets done to it.

They want everyone to have equal access to ALL the same source code, so that makes them "greedy." Riiiiiight.

Re:Mickeysoft had used BSD before

[Anonymous Coward]

Excessive, pointless use of all-caps: a clear sign of autism.

I call it a sign of fucktardism.

The singularity.....

[thegarbz]

It's beautiful.

Re:frist post

[Anonymous Coward]

Abort, retry, fail?

Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although you joke, those who use Linux, especially those who use it seriously and for the long term, should be getting worried right about now.

We're seeing turmoil within the wider Linux community, mainly thanks to systemd. Regardless of your take on systemd, it has been very divisive.

Systemd has been a total disaster for many users, resulting in Linux installations that don't boot properly.

Even those who don't dislike it completely do realize that it represents a dangerous consolidation within the Linux ecosystem.

It goes beyond systemd, including problematic software like GNOME 3, PulseAudio, and even newer versions of Firefox.

A monoculture is developing, where all of the major Linux distros are becoming very much alike.

Linux users who don't want to be part of this monoculture are told to use obscure niche distros, which is a polite way of telling them to "fuck off and die".

So many have looked elsewhere. The *BSDs are an obvious choice for many refugees from Linux, and OS X for others.

We're seeing a resurgence of interest in FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and it won't be good for Linux.

There is now a whole generation of young developers and sysadmins who missed out on the FreeBSD glory years of the 1990s, but who are now rediscovering what we knew then: that the BSDs provide the best open source UNIX-like experience available.

So while we're seeing the Linux ecosystem disintegrate, we're seeing the FreeBSD and OpenBSD ecosystems becoming even stronger.

Linux users should be very concerned about the long term viability of Linux. Those who have enough foresight to see what's happening to the Linux ecosystem are already moving to FreeBSD or OpenBSD, and they will be glad that they got out before things got really bad.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[SumDog]

Don't know why you're getting the downvotes.

I agree with you on systemd. Linux did need full process management. I do like how systemd standardized the init system and it'd be nice if there could be a simple drop-in replacement for it. Uselessd development has stopped and no one has the time to contribute anymore. The big projects are all funded by the big for-profit companies.

I use Gentoo and still love it. I don't use systemd, but it is an optional choice (like it should be). I haven't touched FreeBSD in years, but I can understand people moving that route. I might load it up at some point. I just don't have the time to invest these days and Gentoo still works great for me at work and at home.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know why you're getting the downvotes.

Probably because most of the post was unsubstantiated personal opinion, and fairly troll-ish at that.

Most of the systemd hoopla is vastly overblown and there is a VERY loud minority doing what they can to make it look otherwise. In the broader perspective, for us who actually use various Linux distributions to make our business tick (as well as at home, thank you) it's simply not that of a big deal. We adapt and move on, as we always do.

I am more than happy for any success the various *BSDs may see. Alternatives are good to have.

Why some still sees it as some kind of match that must have a winner is beyond me.

So, yeah. That's probably at least part of why that post has seen some downvotes.

It's childish, petty and not constructive whatsoever.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't spell it "systemd".

Spell it "SystemD"

That way it looks like an ASCII penis.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why some still sees it as some kind of match that must have a winner is beyond me.

Ask the systemd people. It was their decision to make systemd so intrusive that it was "systemd or nothing." The older init systems were plug-replaceable. The systemd version of "plug replaceable" is that systemd is still there, but if you flip enough switches you can pretend it's not.

It shouldn't have to require migrating to an entirely different OS just to get alternatives.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Bengie]

SystemD is happy-path programming at its finest. Just don't expect to fix your system when something goes wrong. SystemD's failure paths violate Principle of least astonishment. I work with these type of people all the time. They test the heck out of the happy-path and everything works great, but if they can't test it, they can't imagine it, so they have all kinds of corner cases, and the strange assignment of responsibilities makes the system difficult to reason about.

Programming skill is distributed on a power curve. SystemD's design is below average, but well above median, so I guess it's an overall win.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if Linus knew how to even install BSD, it would be better. People want an Operating System, which maybe isn't what UNIX/Linux is. You talk out of one side of your mouth, and the other mentions things like Firefox? which is a user application and shouldn't matter. Do you wan't an OS or a Kernel? If you want an OS, then STFU and suck down your mouth whatever the developers want to give you.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't have to require migrating to an entirely different OS just to get alternatives.

Alternatives are GOOD. My personal computing is done via live CD's. I use one different OS every single day. Several Linux's and BSD's. Everyday is an adventure. Cheers!

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Endloser]

The commenter was likely getting downvotes because they were trolling. Now, in true Slashdot fashion, they received upvotes from someone saying, "why're they getting downvotes, durr?"

You are likely getting downvotes for spitting the vitriol the troll feeds on. You may have even helped them climax.

If I had anymore mod points I'd downvote both of you for those reasons. Instead I'll just leave this here and hope others agree.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

machine 1 freebsd 10 laptop + sata + ssd hard drive (does 550mB/s in linux) getting ONLY 18mB PER FUCKING SECOND

machine 2 freebsd 10.1 efi laptop + sata +ssd hard drive WONT FUCKING INSTALL & DOESNT DETECT r8169 ETHERNET!

De ja vu same clusterfuck as the last clusterfuck

fuck all this shit

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

That pretty much sums up the level that the systemd detractors are at, sure it started with a lot of genuine feedback and criticism but soon devolved into mountains of vitriol from people who didn't really know what they were talking about or how to express themselves and has ultimately boiled down to "it can be capitalized to look like an ascii penis". No wonder desktop Linux is in such a poor state.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, another trollish attempt to put down "systemd" and more sneakily put down Linux in general which would be more fitting coming from a fairly well-known software companies PR department. I do think that moderators marking this as "interesting" would learn the difference between personal and unsubstantiated opinion and a genuinely interesting article.

If you don't like "systemd" for whatever reason that's fine but if you put words to paper then please substantiate your claims.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

> SystemD's failure paths violate Principle of least astonishment.

SystemD violates the Separation of Concerns in multiple ways. It's practically a poster boy for why the principle exists.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Trax3001BBS]

Although you joke, those who use Linux, especially those who use it seriously and for the long term, should be getting worried right about now.

It goes beyond systemd, including problematic software like GNOME 3, PulseAudio, and even newer versions of Firefox.

Worried? You bet, Linux Mint is getting sloppy, and I plan (had) on running Mint KDE long term and seriously.

Install Opera 12.16 (12.16.1860-1linuxmint) (this is the best Windows version, and browser).
Left click far left Opera tab > Settings > Preferences > Advanced
There are 5 boxes for selected options (4 selected) with no indication of what they are for or do, and it continues through out the settings.

I won't use it.

This is a verified realible release from Synaptic Package Manager no PPA's; main (rosa) and Base (trusty) mirrors only.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

And sysv init's failure path could lead to infinite loops on boot and shutdown (I have experienced both), I must say that so far I have found systemd much easier to find out why a daemon fails or not as compared with sysv.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

No there has never even been any "systemd or nothing" from the systemd people. You have no problem to apt-get remove all the systemd packages on Debian and replace it with sysv. HOWEVER developers of other software like Gnome saw what systemd provided, saw that it was good and thus begun to make use of the specific features that it provided (logind in this case). So what you now claim is that it's the systemd developer fault for creating something that other people wants to use...

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[marcello_dl]

I noticed all the things you did notice, plus one, the freebsd offered as an alternative to the systemd linux.

Leaving a GPLd distro for one that lets corporations fork freely is leaving the trenches to hide beyond cardboard boxes.

Captcha, distill.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Barsteward]

"It shouldn't have to require migrating to an entirely different OS just to get alternatives."

of course you should if you don't like the software choices of your preferred distro. its their work hence their decisions and they are entitled to do what they like with it.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[marcello_dl]

> You have no problem to apt-get remove all the systemd packages

Not so easy, since a total linux noob like Knopper takes one hour to attempt.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[silentcoder]

So ? Has ANY distro used sysv in ten years anyway ?
We've had numerous alternatives for two decades now. Slashdot has had BSD-style inits since 1993. Richard Gooch had a parallel init system based on make's approach to dependencies as early as 2001. Gentoo has defaulted to OpenRC for many years, Ubuntu had upstart (which was actually a very nice init system) for almost as long.

Comparing systemd to sysv is a strawman fallacy. Compare it to the OTHER contemporary init systems that ALL managed to solve the issues that make sysv less than desirable and none of which strayed outside managing the init process.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[jandersen]

I suspect I am going to be shouted down for this, but there is also Solaris, which IMO is a very good system as well. Some of the best ideas in unix came from SunOS. I've never really had the chance to work with the BSDs, so I don't know how they compare.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

Slashdot? You perhaps mean Slackware? Other than those every other distribution used sysv like Debian, Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu (prior to Upstart and Upstart is a POS in comparison with systemd) and so on. SysV was the primary init system on most Linux distributions until systemd came along. Yes there where some other smaller ones like OpenRC and Upstard but they never took off.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[LichtSpektren]

Although you joke, those who use Linux, especially those who use it seriously and for the long term, should be getting worried right about now.

We're seeing turmoil within the wider Linux community, mainly thanks to systemd. Regardless of your take on systemd, it has been very divisive.

It's been very divisive only because of people spreading FUD like yourself.

It goes beyond systemd, including problematic software like GNOME 3, PulseAudio, and even newer versions of Firefox. ... Linux users who don't want to be part of this monoculture are told to use obscure niche distros, which is a polite way of telling them to "fuck off and die".

Pick one:
1. I want a niche distro to accommodate my specific need (i.e. to boycott software maintained by people who work for Red Hat and Mozilla).
2. I want a mainstream distro that uses technologies that the majority is OK with.
3. I will roll/maintain/fund my own distro that is a preferential combination of 1 & 2.

So while we're seeing the Linux ecosystem disintegrate, we're seeing the FreeBSD and OpenBSD ecosystems becoming even stronger.

I am just curious if you have a single stat to back that up with. Because the financials of Red Hat, SUSE, Oracle, IBM, etc. (all rising Linux revenues) versus OpenBSD (continuously has to beg for funding) don't at all corroborate your observations.

You're maybe thinking of this very article, where Microsoft is offering FreeBSD for their cloud services. You're aware that before they announced this, they already rolled their own version of Debian for the same purposes, right?

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[silentcoder]

What was on them looked like SysV but wasn't. And yes, I had intended to write slackware. Upstart however was absolutely fantastic compared to systemd - it was just atrocious compared to the best alternatives like OpenRC or simpleinit.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

Well each to their own, as a writer of init scripts / unit files and manager of servers I atleast find systemd to be way way better than upstart.

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[silentcoder]

I measure an init system by more than the scripts it uses. The unit files are not actually bad (if frequently a pain in the arse to locate or edit). The existence of logind was where things began to horribly wrong. If systemd had been an init system a whole init system and absolutely nothing but an init system nobody would have cared. Those who disliked it could readily just swap it out as we could dozens of init systems before it. From the moment any component stops being readily replaceable with any other implementation it breaks the single most valuable feature of linux and indeed unix as a whole. The feature that has allowed unix to persist for almost 5 decades running on everything from mainframes to the phone I am writing this on.
Undermining the flexibility which is exclusively achievable by having all tools being entirely independent of all other tools is signing the deathknell for Linux. Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. The first time some market shift changes our fundamental requirements as they have done a thousand times in 50 years Linux will become the first unix in all these decades that does not instantly fill the next niche. The unixes that stayed unix will take whaylt would have been Linux's next crown because systemd destroys the sole feature that ever actually mattered.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

Solaris WAS a great OS until bought up by Larry the asshole. I was a Solaris engineer up until the change. When our support contract when from $2,000.00 a year at the data center I worked at to around $750,000 a year well over 600 Solaris servers got replaced by Linux.

I will never spend the time to learn a system that can one day be bought out from under me.

I do miss SunOS.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

It does not take Klaus one hour to attempt. He spends the first 20 minutes discussing all the good things that systemd have introduced. Then he takes one minute to discuss why his specific use case (booting knoppix on dvds) rather would be without any init system at all. Then he for 20 minutes demonstrates three different ways how systemd could be removed from Ubuntu. So this is not an attempt, this is a demonstration, and the problems that he shows in demonstration #1 is because Ubuntu have put a hard dependency on systemd in their ubuntu-core package. The problem with demonstration #2 is that the version of Network Manager in Ubuntu uses the user sessions from logind and that the init script to remount root to read-writable have been removed by Ubuntu some time ago.

I would say that none of this was directly strange considering that Ubuntu have not used sysv for over 10 years now (6.10 was the first version with Upstart), so naturally there are no one that tests that everything works fine with sysv in Ubuntu any more. And that all the problems encountered where not from systemd itself but from the fact that systemd have been seen as providing such great functionality that developers of other software have begun to build in dependencies for it in their software. This is akin to complaining that glibc is bad because it provides things that say musl does not so we now have quite a few programs that only works with glibc.

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

Locating and editing the unit files are actually quite easy once you learn how to use systemd. If you write for example "systemctl status mediatomb.service" (and the name of the unit file can be tab completed so it's not all that if one does not remember the full name), then we get output like:

mediatomb.service - UPnP MediaServer
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/mediatomb.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
Active: active (running) since fre 2016-06-10 13:49:40 CEST; 6h ago

So after "Loaded:" we get the full path of the unit file so locating them are actually quite easy, then there is "systemctl edit mediatomb.service" for editing the unit file directly via the systemctl command.

That logind have made other programs creating a hard dependency on logind is of course unfortunate for people who wants to run other init's but that is simply due to logind providing support for things that the developers of those other programs wants (otherwise they would not have used them). And this is nothing new in Unixland, there are several programs that you cannot move from AIX to Solaris or from Solaris to HPUX and so on, and there are non systemd versions of logind that are being worked on so even this will probably (i.e if enough developers care about it) be a solved problem.

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[silentcoder]

Logind is just one in a long list. What is systemd up to now ? 40 programs ?

I am concerned about this direction. And what you showed in that message has only increased my concern. Putting configs in /lib ? A program that you run to configure itself ? Commands should be configurable without even existing and configs should survive their removal.
Cleartext is a fudamental part of that critical independence I described.
Please read the first few chapters of the art of unix programming. Just the introductions will do.
Then evaluate systemd again...

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Black Jack Hyde]

Good points. I cut my admin teeth on FreeBSD and later OpenBSD. The world is catching up to me 12 years ago :)

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

I think that there are around 69 systemd programs now :) but that is according with the main goal of the systemd project to create common plumbing for linux systems. Before systemd every distribution used different plumbings so if you managed Red Hat systems, Debian systems and so on you had to know all the different locations of say the networking settings, we who develop daemons had to create completely different init scripts for each and every distribution and so on. And I understand that this is received with quite some excitement by the people who run lots of virtualized servers / containers but that is not an area that I'm the least interested in so I have not looked at it closely.

So systemd are replacing all the really low level system daemons just like GNU replaced all the Unix tools way back. Whether to use them by default or not will still be up to the maintainers of the various distributions but so far they have liked what they have seen (upcoming Ubuntu will for example replace dnsmasq with systemd-dns) but there will always be room for distributions like Gentoo or Devuan for those that want to use other tools (and I don't see Ubuntu removing the dnsmasq package for example)

The "by the system" installed unit files are stored in /lib/systemd/system yes, then when you enable a service (and this is a very welcoming thing with systemd that you can enable and disable services without having to complete remove all files) systemd creates a link in /etc/systemd/system/ and this is also where you are supposed to put your own custom unit files and where you put your changed unit files (so a new changed file from the system will not overwrite your custom changes).

And they are all in cleartext so I don't really get what you meant by that part? "systemctl edit" is not the only or mandatory way to edit unit files, it's just there as a helper so that you can do all things systemd with the systemctl command. So this is more choice, not less.

I have programmed Unix for over 20+ years now and I cannot see how anything with systemd is anti Unix or anti Posix at all. All configs are clear text, it's still the old one program does one thing (which is why there are so many different systemd programs). The only thing that I can find (and the one thing that I'm not 100% agreeing with) is the binary logging by journald, I don't like it but I do understand why the systemd devs went in that direction and the people who have compared this with the Windows System Event logging have never ever had the misfortune to code for that piece of shit (I have). And it's note like there was never a binary format of anything throughout the Unix history.

Re:Linux users should be getting worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

> have been seen as providing such great functionality that developers of other software have begun to build in dependencies for it

Technically this would not be a problem.
But it appears existing dependencies on the existing systems are being removed, else systemd would be apt-get removable as grand grand parent post affirmed.
  Captcha> abstruse

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[Bengie]

SystemD is "anti Unix" because it should be composable. Do one thing, do it well. Each part of the SystemD collection should be standalone useful and easily integrated into other systems. SystemD is modular in word, but not in spirit.

The proof is in the pudding. When you start to see parts of SystemD being used in other systems and other systems replacing parts of SystemD, that is when you know it is good.

Re: Linux users should be getting worried.

[F.Ultra]

There is nothing that prevents you from creating your own version of each and every systemd component, the communications protocol that some of the tools use (D-BUS) is not proprietary or secret so it's indeed modular in spirit. And there is already projects that do just that, elogind for example replaces logind and I have heard of other such projects by the OpenBSD team.

You can't undo your Fuck OSS rep stop trying!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't install FreeBSD or many other OSS on 99% of cheap new laptops cos Secure Boot hell from M$. I also can't do it without funding M$, so go fuck yourself M$, no serious developer trusts your BS, stop trying to appeal to us.

Re:You can't undo your Fuck OSS rep stop trying!

[Anonymous Coward]

not really, if the drive is formated GPT (or ever had a UEFI OS on it, and was not completely erased) your bios may decide to NOT allow you to boot it, even in NON-UEFI mode.

Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vendor

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft at one point was the #1 vendor of Unix systems, selling TRS-80 Unix systems at Radio Shack.

Office on OSX is the current #1 best selling Unix software.

Why are people surprised that Microsoft has a large Unix presence?

This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

I choose to avoid Microsoft products as a Unix/Linux guy, and now Microsoft goes and does this. Yes, yes, the license allows for it.

We all know and remember that back in the day Hotmail ran on FreeBSD and it took forever for MS to port it all over to Windows of some kind. I sometimes wonder if they ever actually did. I've often thought that Microsoft runs some things on FreeBSD because Windows just cannot scale like FreeBSD can, nor can it handle the loads FreeBSD can.

I like things when the water is not muddied. The water is now muddied. Microsoft needs to stay in their own yard and leave OSS to those who actually respect it and the license. A company with the EEE mentality Microsoft has needs to mind its own business.

No one with any real understanding of IT would be using Microsoft products for anything serious anyway. I've been in IT across three decades and every shop I've worked in that relied on Microsoft for something critical came to regret that decision and something else like Linux or FreeBSD was sought out and used.

Re:This bothers me

[bhcompy]

No one with any real understanding of IT would be using Microsoft products for anything serious anyway.

You know how I know that you have no real understanding of IT?

Re:This bothers me

[crtreece]

I'm no Microsoft fan, but, they did submit their changes back upstream to FBSD. The BSD license doesn't require them to do that, but they did.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

No one with any real understanding of IT would be using Microsoft products for anything serious anyway. I've been in IT across three decades and every shop I've worked in that relied on Microsoft for something critical came to regret that decision and something else like Linux or FreeBSD was sought out and used.

I agree and have been in IT for almost 3 decades as well.

But you must remember, Microsoft started selling NT to management because IT would not trust it. Today they push it to CIO's. The one at the company I work for announced that we are going to be a 100% Microsoft shop. She went on to explain how she signed a deal to get deep discounts on all Microsoft products. I know it is going to be a huge mess trying to convert the 20 year old HP-UX boxes to windows but she has never even been in the data center so she is blissfully ignorant.

So while companies come to regret it down the road, there is always a new sucker stepping into the CIO position as the old one moves to a new company after coking the books to make it look like it was a large money saver.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they done did good. I still hate them, but this is a good thing. They have raised themselves up to "only slightly worse than Apple."

Re:This bothers me

[subanark]

Of course they did. Microsoft wants Linux to work better on Azure, so any improvements they make which allows it to work better with Hyper-V, you can bet they want those improvements adopted. Otherwise, someone will simply decide to use AWS due to AWS working better with older drivers that were made to work well with Zen, but not Hyper-V.

Re:This bothers me

[ruir]

No one with business acumen AND real IT experience should be using MS products.

Re:This bothers me

[crtreece]

Microsoft wants Linux to work better on Azure

I'm not sure I'm following. Microsoft made some changes to FBSD, so it will work better on Azure and Hyper-V. They submitted those changes back to the main FBSD project. What does any of that have to do with Linux?

Re:This bothers me

[LVSlushdat]

I'd be polishing the ole re-zu-me, If I were you... That company is going down the toilet...

Re:This bothers me

[LVSlushdat]

You know why that is, don't you? Their version of FreeBSD has some subtle tweaks that makes it optimized for Azure, and also some tweaks that "de-optimize" it for Xen/KVM and other virtualization schemes.. If I was a FreeBSD muckymuck, I'd make DAMN sure any patches MS submits are VERY closely audited.. Say it with me... Embrace/Extend/Extinguish....

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your Linux kernel hasn't been updated at all in the last 7 years, then.

There's been Microsoft code in it since 2009, and they are now one of the top contributors to Linux. And for the same reason: drivers, Hyper-V and Azure.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

I've been in IT for a very long time. I preferred when vendors software didn't play well together. This bothers me as a major FreeBSD fan and user. Microsoft needs to stay on their side of the tracks. I miss the old days, I really do. I miss the "priesthood of the computer" when IT people were IT people and we worked in data centers. I do miss mainframes. I do miss so much of the older days. IT has been so watered down with crap now.

Re:This bothers me

[pr0fessor]

coking the books to make it look like it was a large money saver

You have no idea what a decent SLA on a service support contract costs on REL do you?

Re:This bothers me

[bhcompy]

Why? I don't want to teach the receptionist how to use Debian. Anyone with real understanding of IT and business acumen knows that IT infrastructure has users, and those users have to be productive in order for your job to be worth anything, and IT is almost invariably responsible for making sure those users can use it effectively. I have *nix servers. I have Windows servers. The desktops for people that I'm responsible for use Windows. And they use Office. And Sharepoint. And Outlook. And we use Exchange. And Active Directory. And that's all because it makes my life easy in that area so I can focus on more important shit, and so it's easy to find someone to hire to pick up those extra duties that I don't want to pick up or that I'm too busy to pick up when necessary.

It barely takes any business acumen and barely any understanding of IT to know that the less basic skills such as basic computer use you have to train the people you need to be productive, the better off your organization is. And that doesn't get into replacing/adding IT staff. Competent *nix admins are not a dime a dozen and they are not as cheap as competent Windows admins.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

An almost verbatim conversation..

PHB: (having read some BS somewhere..) You've to get rid of all Linux systems from our networks now, mumble mumble hackers, mumble security, mumble Microsoft software and operating systems only.
Me: No worries, better warn people their phones are about to go offline then...
PHB: Why?
Me: Guess which OS runs your Cisco phone system?
PHB: Errr......
Me: While we're at it, say goodbye to your firewall as well...
Me:Oh, and before I forget, your WLANs, care to guess guess which OS all these expensively purchased boxes run?

Management/CIOs whatever you call them are such clueless arseholes at the best of times, they half digest some marketing twaddle and spout it as if they know what they're talking about, and hey, their word on the subject is both gospel and final.
To make matters worse, the PHB above is only in this position thanks to nepotism..he has no IT qualifications or experience other than as a user.
 

Re:This bothers me

[turbidostato]

" You know how I know that you have no real understanding of IT?"

There are A LOT of business using Microsoft products left and right.

Still, the parent poster has nailed it: "No one with any real understanding of IT would be using Microsoft products for anything serious anyway." (I would say "at all" instead).

The fact that it is the biggest software company in the world says a lot about the dismaying state of IT in general.

Re:This bothers me

[turbidostato]

"It barely takes any business acumen and barely any understanding of IT..."

Yes: with barely any business and IT acumen and understanding comes Microsoft to be the biggest software company in the world after few decades. With deep business and IT acumen and understanding, on the other hand, things would have been completely different.

"Competent *nix admins are not a dime a dozen and they are not as cheap as competent Windows admins"

See? there you have an insight about "deep" business acumen: putting costs above productivity.

Re:This bothers me

[bhcompy]

Productivity of your productive workforce I already covered. As far as productivity of your IT force, the real world called and they did the math and found the sweetspot between productivity and costs, particularly as it relates to the very real problem of employee turnover. There is absolutely zero productivity reason to go with a completely *nix/BSD IT solution from top to bottom. There is very much a reason to go with a hybrid approach, which is what I advocated, for a large variety of reasons, which I touched upon.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is easy to use, actually. So you could use linux on desktops and servers, but wait that's too easy. Move the servers to FreeBSD, that'll get rid of systemd crap. But now you've realized FreeBSD works too well, so let's move to FreeBSD on the desktop and OpenBSD on the server..
After a few more cycles of this who knows what you'll run.

Re:This bothers me

[DRJlaw]

Say it with me... Embrace/Extend/Extinguish....

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt... and not coming from Microsoft.

Their version of FreeBSD has some subtle tweaks that makes it optimized for Azure, and also some tweaks that "de-optimize" it for Xen/KVM and other virtualization schemes.

I demand proof, not FUD.

Re:This bothers me

[PCM2]

Yes: with barely any business and IT acumen and understanding comes Microsoft to be the biggest software company in the world after few decades. With deep business and IT acumen and understanding, on the other hand, things would have been completely different.

These statements seem silly. Why do offices run on Microsoft networking and Active Directory when Novell's product line predated both? How did Microsoft become the #1 word processor vendor when everybody already had WordPerfect? When both those companies went out of business, were their execs grumbling that they could never seem to find any customers with "deep business and IT acumen"? What do you suppose their boards of directors would think of an excuse like that?

Re:This bothers me

[PCM2]

I'm not sure I'm following. Microsoft made some changes to FBSD, so it will work better on Azure and Hyper-V. They submitted those changes back to the main FBSD project. What does any of that have to do with Linux?

The GP probably made a slip of the (virtual) tongue. But Microsoft already made all these changes to the Linux kernel. It submitted them, too. There was one year when Microsoft was one of the top Linux kernel contributors, owing to all the Hyper-V related changes it submitted.

Re:This bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft needs to stay in their own yard and leave OSS to those who actually respect it and the license.

Like who? Oracle? Google? How exactly is it that Microsoft doesn't "respect OSS and the license"? Like you already said, the license allows it and they have made many contributions under the GPL to the Linux kernel. Over the past few years they have also released a *lot* of projects under OSS licenses.

A company with the EEE mentality Microsoft has needs to mind its own business.

Companies are not people, they don't have a "mentality". Perhaps they have a "culture" but of course that is always in flux particularly when you have a changing world and changing leaders. This "EEE" was something from a specific case 2 decades ago targeted at Java that has never, ever succeeded at "embracing, extending, extinguishing" anything. It's the mind-numbing stupidity of people like you that cling to this one thing and extrapolate over all the companies actions forever. I mean people don't go out and say open source contributors are murderous, sexist deviants at every opportunity, but hey why not take one historical action of one small part of a group now made of vastly different people and extrapolate it across everybody forever.

Re:This bothers me

[turbidostato]

"Why do offices run on Microsoft networking and Active Directory when Novell's product line predated both? How did Microsoft become the #1 word processor vendor when everybody already had WordPerfect?"

Because Novell was overly complex for the personal computer environment of the time (but, alas, the very moment Novell was an enemy no more, Microsoft launched the very same product Novell had for years: AD) and because Microsoft , while being an awful software company, has been a magnificent marketing company.

"What do you suppose their boards of directors would think of an excuse like that?"

They would think "we are not a damn IT company, we are a damn money-making company: if our buyers were unable to appreciate our products why did we insist in selling the best product instead of making sure we could sell our product?". Larry Ellison is another one that perfectly understood what was happening when he said he preferred a bad product with good marketing to a good product with bad marketing any day of the week. And I also remember an early interview to Bob Young stating that they should aim to sell their products to the bean counters, not the tech guys.

Re:This bothers me

[exomondo]

Their version of FreeBSD has some subtle tweaks that makes it optimized for Azure

Well to work on Hyper-V, yes. Much like their contributions to the Linux kernel.

and also some tweaks that "de-optimize" it for Xen/KVM and other virtualization schemes

I can't see such a thing in the FreeBSD tree anywhere, can you point to where these "tweaks" are?

Say it with me... Embrace/Extend/Extinguish....

Seems to me that "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" actually means "Will become hugely popular", the phrase has only ever come up with Java and the result is that Java is the key language for the most prevalent mobile OS and can also be used on Windows, Linux and OSX among other platforms. Some people have tried to pretend they applied to HTML too, if that's true then it indeed supports the argument that it's a good thing because HTML is a broad open standard and even Microsoft themselves are pushing for the elimination of proprietary plugins. They killed off their own ActiveX and sliverlight support in favor of open standards. People also said it about them contributing to Linux yet it is now used even more widely than before, on Microsoft's own platform no less.

Re:This bothers me

[TheRaven64]

I don't want to teach the receptionist how to use Debian

Why not? A receptionist needs to be able to use an address book and calendar, possibly a word processor, and email. These things are basically the same on all major operating systems. There are lots of people that it would be difficult to migrate to a different OS, but the receptionist ought to be one of the easiest.

Re:This bothers me

[bhcompy]

Because basic computer knowledge training is not the role of IT, it's the job of the perspective employee to have basic computer/word processing skills, which they will almost definitely have relevant experience if you're in a Windows environment.

Great news

[cen1]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with FreeBSD addition, Azure is the only major cloud provider besides AWS that offers all three major operating systems available today: Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. Will definitely consider Azure for my cross-platform endeavors in the future.

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there...

Re:Great news

[swb]

There's at least one pfsense appliance in the AWS image inventory from a third party vendor.

Re:Great news

[cen1]

FreeBSD 10 is available on AWS. And that's why I currently use AWS. Competition is always good.

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

> Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong... I LOL'd when you said FreeBSD was a "major operating system"

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

The three "major operating systems" available today are Windows, Linux, and OS X.

Throw in Android if you consider it separate from Linux.

Everything else is an also-ran.

The GPL is the Inevitable death of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

More and more companies will adopt BSD and contribute HUGE pieces of code like ZFS and Dtrace back to the community and Linux will be left further and further behind. So long GPL, don't let the door hit you on the way out of history.

Re:The GPL is the Inevitable death of Linux

[nvm_my_comment]

ZFS and Dtrace were made by sun microsystem for open solaris... It's only recently that a project was FUNDED to have zfs on linux.

They added forced upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

for that Microsoft value.

WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I call "how to corrupt an OS". Shit, and I though Reweb was the only retards finding serurity failures on BSD OS to keep Tor shit alive.

what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

. Microsoft needs to stay in their own yard and leave OSS to those who actually respect it and the license.

Fucking HILARIOUS

Microsoft is the NUMBER ONE vendor of BSD software. Microsoft Word on OS X is the biggest selling BSD product EVER.

Re:what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking HILARIOUS

Microsoft is the NUMBER ONE vendor of BSD software. Microsoft Word on OS X is the biggest selling BSD product EVER.

The joke is on you. Because Mycrapsoft has a heavy hand on BSD software it doesn't mean that you should not avoid Mycrapsoft like the plague.

Re: what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, a slashdot member let his 4 year old child with downs syndrome near the keyboard again

Re:what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

And YOU are probably a #FREEBSD op with SEVERE AUTISM, judging by your WINNING ASSBURGER PERSONALITY and NEEDLESS CAPITALIZATION.

You CUNT.

Re:what an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X is to BSD what Windows is to BSD.

dizzy

[Anonymous Coward]

the /. spin. its too much. you guys seem old and frightened.

Re:dizzy

[LVSlushdat]

We may be old (66 here), but we're just realistic.. MS can kiss my ass.. (somebody had to say it, many of us are thinking it..)

Re:dizzy

[Anonymous Coward]

We may be old (66 here), but we're just realistic.. MS can kiss my ass.. (somebody had to say it, many of us are thinking it..)

no, you are delusional, NOBODY wants microsoft to kiss your 66 year old ass, nobody is even thinking about it

Re:dizzy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so to justify your FUD, what has Microsoft "Embraced, Extended and Extinguished"?

Re:dizzy

[silentcoder]

Guess you don't remember a little something called Spyglass Mosaic ? The browser microsoft basically stole, rebranded and called Internet Explorer which then turned this product of a now bankrupted company into a flagship microsoft product that dominated the web for nearly two decades, destroyed the original netscape and for a very long time made large parts of the web entirely inaccesible to anybody who didn't use windows.

But that history goes back much further. They did the exact same thing with 86-DOS - killing Seattle Computer Products in the process, and not long after that the used an even dirtier trick to effectively kill MacOS before it even launched. The decline of apple (which did not end until the return of Jobs and the launch of the Imac around 1999 - which was only possible because M$ gave them a bunch of cash to stave of the DOJ) began with the launch of Windows which was a flagrant rip-off of the upcoming macOS that they did while under contract to develop apps for the prototype OS. Apple sued them - the court found Microsoft definitely DID commit copyright violation in creating windows, it's just that apple didn't have standing to sue since the technologies being sued over were not created by Apple but by XEROX (who had allowed Jobs to use it freely but still technically owned the copyright).

Hell Microsoft has a history of embrace, extend, extinguish that is literally the entire history of the company. Hell they themselves admitted it (albeit unintentionally). Ever heard of the Halloween Papers ? A leaked internal memo about how to deal with the "Linux threat" in which microsoft outlines a plan based on a step-by-step description of what we would come to call "embrace, extend, extinguish". To quote them: "The key reason why competing products like Linux is viable is because of commodity protocols like HTTP which allows non-microsoft products to use the internet just like our own products do. The best way to destroy this competition is to decomodify all protocols by adding proprietory extensions only our own products understand thus ensuring that other operating system users on the internet get inferior or no access to internet services like websites and email".

What do you think exchange was created for if not to decomodify SMTP/POP/Imap ?

Hell Microsoft even tried to pull an EEE on the tcp/ip stack standard handshake protocol. This is well documented, IIS flagrantly violated the standard handshake protocol, I.E. violated it the same way. The double violation would allow IE to instantly connect to IIS hosted websites, but any other standards-compliant browser would be forced into a time-out sequence (IIS would then switch to the proper standard upon the reconnect attempt) before managing to connect. Which made Linux browsers (and even windows versions of netscape and firefox) appear to have much slower performance than I.E. at least when connecting to ISS hosted sites.

Just how many examples do you actually want ?

Now is THIS an example of EEE ? It doesn't look like it to me, but to pretend that EEE was not a thing, and a major thing, which has done incalculable harm to the computer industry is just bold-faced lying. Frankly it's very easy to calculate the cost that EEE has imposed upon the computer industry. The number is readily available, this is one externality where the the cost is absolutely transparent. The cost of EEE to the entire IT industry is exactly equal to the combined total profits of Microsoft over the entirety of it's existence.

Re:dizzy

[Anonymous Coward]

EEE would actually be costlier than the integration of MS over time, but the inceptor would not recognize it. You need an adequately formulated financial statement in economics to assess the losses and the whys.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft was originally a UNIX shop.

https://www.unixmen.com/xenix-the-microsoft-unix-that-once-was/

OpenBSD vs. MSBSD

[The Grim Reefer]

"OpenBSD believes in strong security. Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in the industry for security (if we are not already there). "

MSBSD must be on [Dr. Evil voice]"one-BILLION devices" within 2 to 3 years. Security is of such importance that you have no say in updates. Ignore that man behind the curtain phoning home. It's for security damn it. Drivers will be almost as reliable as you've come to expect from *BSD. You didn't have Start menu before, so you can't whine about it now.

Would you like to schedule you free MSBSD update today? Y/N: N

How about now? Y/N: N

OK, MSBSD has started updating...

Re:OpenBSD vs. MSBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity I do not have mod points.... genius!

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[ruir]

TRS-80 had Xenix, not Unix. Yes, I used Xenix in Intel 286 CPUs....

Next week's headline

[sootman]

"Due to a Windows Update server misconfiguration, users who clicked "yes" to upgrade to Windows 10 after 10 June 2016 found themselves running BSD."

Re:Next week's headline

[danlip]

and they consider it the best upgrade MS has ever released

Re:Next week's headline

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be awesome!

Logical conclusion:

[Kevin108]

BSOD on BSD.

Destroyed?

[ArchieBunker]

I don't think you are using that word correctly. IBM dumped the PC division because the market is saturated and the margin is thin.

Nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten free Blue Screens of Death from Microsoft plenty of times.

Any trust is LONG gone...

[LVSlushdat]

I used/supported MS products for nearly 20 years, but when I retired I decided I was done with MS' and other proprietary software. After seeing the bullshit MS is pulling with Windows 10, I would trust MS about as far as I could throw them. At least with their FreeBSD, I assume you can audit the source code, to be sure they haven't sprinkled little "telemetry" surprises in it.. *IF* I was going to run FreeBSD on a cloud-based virtual host, I'd stay the hell away from Azure, and it would be an actual FreeBSD release...

Re:Any trust is LONG gone...

[Anonymous Coward]

> At least with their FreeBSD, I assume you can audit the source code, to be sure they haven't sprinkled little "telemetry" surprises in it..

Nope. This is one case where GPL is superior... if they distribute a binary to you, they HAVE to give you the source used to build it.

With FreeBSD, there is no guarantee that the binary has anything at all to do with the source code you're auditing.

Time to move on!

[Anonymous Coward]

So we'll have to check some FreeBSD alternatives now that MS have its hands in the kernel nonetheless! Guess I'll give haiku OS a spin :-D

Shocking, "Free" and "MS" in the same sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocking news today, as the word FREE appeared in the same sentence as Microsoft! But, with three easy payments, it will come shrinkwrapped in an XBOX 1 which was more or less the same era that your kids even heard of Microsoft for the first time. If you choose to click the red X in the top right hand corner of this window, the unit will already be shipped with the address we have found on your hard drive. Yes, that is our definition of Free (shipping) BSD and Free XBOX1 that we can finally get off our hands!

another idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

TRS-80 had Xenix, not Unix.

Xenix IS Unix, fully licensed, fully documented derivative of Version 7.

microsoft contributes to bsd....

[Anonymous Coward]

and by doing so, will indirectly contribute to osx, as it is based on bsd as well, considering that there is some code sharing amongst the various flavours of bsd, eventually what microsoft contributions will end up in macs.

Free Blue Screen of Death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gives a whole new meaning to Blue Screen of Death...

Re:Free Blue Screen of Death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite funny. I laughed out loud.

Gee, I have MY OWN DISTRIBUTION too

[mi]

Microsoft has published its own distribution of FreeBSD 10.3

I too have been building my own distribution of FreeBSD — since 1994. Unlike Linux folks, FreeBSD users are encouraged to build their own kernel and user-space. It is a trivial to do "out of the box" and allows to fine-tune CPU-optimization and add/remove support for various components.

There are plenty of FreeBSD images (such as here) to choose from in AWS' collection — with kernel (and the userspace) customized for Amazon's VMs. Makes all the sense for Azure to try to catch-up.

None of it warrants the claim of "Microsoft's own FreeBSD", however.

Re:Gee, I have MY OWN DISTRIBUTION too

[PCM2]

Unlike Linux folks, FreeBSD users are encouraged to build their own kernel and user-space.

That's a pretty broad statement. What's Gentoo, then?

And I would certainly hope that anyone who considers themselves serious about Linux has at least compiled a kernel and ran 'make' a few times.

Gag

[Anonymous Coward]

I can it now: Free(as in forced upgrade)BSD_Virulent-Vista.iso 10GB

FreeBSOD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they had that since the first version of Windows...

Hyperbole

[Ster]

Hi folks,

Disclaimer: I'm a FreeBSD committer.

MS has been committing various Hyper-V drivers for months. Just like VMWare does for its hypervisor.

This is less

OMG a new fork! Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!!!

and more

Here's a pre-built VM image with 10.3 + a few Hyper-V drivers that weren't backported in time for the 10.3 freeze + a few scripts to automate configuration in the Azure environment

You know, like every other cloud vendor's VM images. Nothing to see here, move along.

So, stop Hyper-Ventilating! ;-)

Re:Hyperbole

[BlueCoder]

Thanks, I was about to say the same thing.

MS just did what every other cloud vendor can and should do.

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, stop Hyper-Ventilating! ;-)

Made me laugh !

Re:Hyperbole

[nine-times]

I agree with you up until the "nothing to see here" part. You're right in pointing out that this is a relatively normal thing to do given that Microsoft develops one of the most widely used hypervisors, but it's still noteworthy because Microsoft has spent decades refusing to do these kinds of "normal things".

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked (which was 2-ish years ago), Hyper-V Linux support was light-years ahead of FreeBSD. We ported FreeBSD's Hyper-V para-virtualized NIC and storage drivers to proprietary OS and had a lot of issues (buffers not properly aligned, etc).

Glanced at Linux code and they were properly implemented there. It was very frustrating to debug and fix this with no documentation whatsoever and a shitty reference implementation.

Can't rally expect anything better from MICROS~1.

Re:Hyperbole

[PCM2]

Can't rally expect anything better from MICROS~1.

Why not? It sounds like Microsoft agrees with your assessment and has decided to rewrite the Hyper-V drivers.

Windows Architecture Upgrade to UNIX

[catchblue22]

Having watched Windows grow from MSDOS, to Windows 3.1, to NT and beyond, and having observed the architectural stability through those stages (e.g. the registry), I have become convinced that the only way Windows will become truly stable and easy to maintain will be for it to adopt a UNIX architecture. This is not an absurd suggestion. Apple did it. It adopted a UNIX kernel, and managed to support legacy programs using virtualization. The process was in fact relatively benign from a user point of view. Old software appeared to continue working as it used to. When one opened a program written for legacy MacOS, a virtualized environment was created, and the program worked in the same way as it did in the older OS, even though it was actually running in OSX.

Windows could do this with relative ease. Create a brand new OS on a UNIX foundation. Create a virtualized environment to run legacy software. The god damned registry and all the other architectural mistakes can live in that space as long as MS wants to preserve legacy support. In the mean time, MS can move on from the detritus that has built up in Windows over the years. It can have a fresh start. The new windows can have things that other UNIX operating systems have enjoyed for years, like for instance proper hardware abstraction. Imagine using the same OS foundations on phones and laptops, like Apple has had for years. Imagine supporting different processor architectures with the same basic OS, like UNIX systems like OSX have had for years.

I left Windows years ago, partly for the reason that the OS was so badly engineered. It shocks me that Windows still runs the software engineering abomination that is the Registry. I currently use a combination of OSX and various UNIX systems. I will NEVER return to windows unless MS upgrades its OS to a more stable foundation.

Re:Windows Architecture Upgrade to UNIX

[Gr8Apes]

I long ago stated that the only way you would get to a secure version of windows was to ditch the core architecture of windows. Sure it can be done (just look at WINE, it's 90% there already) Does MS have the vision and will to make that happen? I doubt it, as they have tried replacing core pieces at least twice in the past decade and only wound up slapping on the UAC and removing the ability to manipulate security tokens within a process, only allowing masking, the exact opposite of what developers need and security experts say is best practices.

Re: Windows Architecture Upgrade to UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X basically does have a registry: it's called LDAP. All the stuff that ought to be in files under /etc on a proper UNIX system are instead squirreled away in a directory instead. The Windows registry is just a directory in the same way as OS X has its directory. It's just not called a registry.

The difference is how they are used.

On Windows, application developers are encouraged to use the registry as a dumping ground for all kinds of crap. In OS X, applications are expected to use bundled plists for default configuration, and user-specific plists on the disk for user customizations. On Linux... well, I guess very application creates a ~/.appname/options file or whatever.

The one nice thing about the registry is that it gives developers an out of the box API for storing configuration information so they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they want to store the users favorite font size for their text editor or whatever.

The bad news is that it gets used for all kinds of crap, and seems to grow without bounds. And for some reason, more keys and values in the registry makes it go slower. I have databases with tens of millions of rows that locate data instantly; why can't Windows find my font color instantly when I launch my app?

Anyway, the registry is somewhat ugly but it does have its uses.

And don't pretend that a big directory of configuration is unique to Windows, because it really isn't.

Re:Windows Architecture Upgrade to UNIX

[drsmithy]

The '90s called, they want their FUD back.

Re: Windows Architecture Upgrade to UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

On Windows, application developers are encouraged to use the registry as a dumping ground for all kinds of crap.

I would call that an exaggeration. MS has fairly specific documentation on what is appropriate to put in the registry and where, plus direction on what not to put into the registry. That has often been ignored, in large part because tools like classic VB made Windows development more broadly accessible, particularly to the kinds of amateur developers who would never read MS documentation. So, "encouraged" is hyperbole.

In OS X, applications are expected to use bundled plists for default configuration, and user-specific plists on the disk for user customizations.

Interesting - I wasn't aware of this (sadly, I have zero OSX development experience), and I don't recall seeing it mentioned here before.

On Linux... well, I guess very application creates a ~/.appname/options file or whatever.

I've occasionally argued with people here who adamantly reject the registry (or anything like it) in favor of the approach of purely text configuration files which usually reside in one or two well understood locations, but potentially reside in many other counter-intuitive locations. There are trade-offs, and non-Windows devs seem to hold a variety of misconceptions about the Windows registry. I happen to prefer the registry, but having it doesn't preclude using plain text .config, .ini, XML, and/or whatever files. Having a registry (Windows style or the OSX LDAP approach) available provides an alternative that a surprising subset of Linux developers seem to despise.

The one nice thing about the registry is that it gives developers an out of the box API for storing configuration information so they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they want to store the users favorite font size for their text editor or whatever.

The bad news is that it gets used for all kinds of crap, and seems to grow without bounds.

Not strictly the fault of MS, as noted above.

And for some reason, more keys and values in the registry makes it go slower. I have databases with tens of millions of rows that locate data instantly...

I've always assumed this problem is due to MS designing the registry in accordance with their own recommended use-cases. Unfortunately, just like MS recommendations for applications with well-behaved permissions and file storage, well-behaved registry usage was also frequently ignored. The mitigation for this used to be avoiding whenever possible those 3rd party applications which were likely culprits - there were lots of traditional clues, e.g. small shop with product written in classic VB. Now, I'd recommend partitioning problematic applications into distinct VMs as needed, but that would incur additional licensing costs for anyone without a volume licensing agreement.

...why can't Windows find my font color instantly when I launch my app?

If by "my app", you mean one you wrote, then I likely have no suggestions beyond what you already know. If you mean an application you bought/downloaded, there are a couple of common problems. First, other applications have ballooned your registry. AFAIK, there is no real fix for that; even if you uninstall the offending apps, the registry does not shrink, nor is there a built-in defragmentation capability (maybe there's a third-party utility for it). Second, if the initial registry reserved size was small and the relevant registry data files have grown, they might be fragmented; try defragging. Of course there's always the "nuke it from orbit and re-install Windows" approach... FWIW, I've got a very old system that still works fine, even with an in-place OS upgrade and multiple HDD replacements, but I also followed (as closely as I could) most of the unwritten Windows lore on keeping such systems going long-term.

- T

It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[DickBreath]

From TFA (the friendly article) . . .

Redmond is not keeping its work on FreeBSD to itself: Anderson says "the MAJORITY of the investments we make at the kernel level to enable network and storage performance were up-streamed into the FreeBSD 10.3 release, so anyone who downloads a FreeBSD 10.3 image from the FreeBSD Foundation will get those investments from Microsoft built in to the OS."

Do you see that big word MAJORITY in there? That means there are parts of the kernel that Microsoft is keeping closed source to themselves.

That is the classic, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. We're to the Extend part right now. It has been extended with proprietary extensions that are not given back to the community.

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also a donation from the beast to OpenBSD a few weeks or maybe months ago.

I think they're playing the long game. I think with all the money the beast has, they can afford R&D people to sit around all day and night and try to find ways to sabotage the FOSS community.

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[DRJlaw]

Do you see that big word MAJORITY in there? That means there are parts of the kernel that Microsoft is keeping closed source to themselves.

Or not. It apparently means that there are subsequent developments that don't appear in 10.3. It also says nothing about whether those developments, or any others, were not upstreamed but are still available under a BSD license.

When you assume you make an ass out of you. Me, I chose to use my brain.

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[The Evil Atheist]

How can they extinguish an open source project they don't own? Do you really think the FreeBSD owners are stupid enough to say "oops, we accidentally accepted these kernel changes and our entire stack won't compile anymore, I guess we have to abandon it"?

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there are so many ways. And redmond is pretty good with a large chunk of then, and this is an area in which they're good with the learning. I'm not sure which will bite the community in the arse first, though: The parts they're withholding or the parts they're "contributing".

OTGH, FreeBSD already did its own poettering through pkgng and a few other mishaps, topped off with complete developer uncomprehension as to what is wrong with their wonderfully new all-singing-all-dancing wheel reinventions and their handling of both the changeovers and any and all protests and pointing out as to what went wrong, so I'd already started to move away from them. Too bad pkgng has infected even the formerly quite promising DragonFly BSD.

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

If they "extinguish" it like they "extinguished" Java or HTML or Linux or Open Source or any number of the things the idiots like you said they were going to then I sure hope they "extinguish" FreeBSD!

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[DickBreath]

Here's how.

Add sugary additive features that make certain things become super easy. And particularly if they can somehow tie you in to Microsoft's prison camp, or "walled garden" in other ways.

Then, the marketing . . .

Use new Microsoft FreeBSD which has been fully EMBRACED by Microsoft. Unlike all those other inferior FreeBSD's, Microsoft's FreeBSD has been EXTENDED with super duper extra addictively delicious features. Our product is so good and so popular that it will EXTINGUISH the competition. Try it today! The first hit is FREE!

Re:It REALLY is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[The Evil Atheist]

That's the most stupidest thing I've read.

What do you think about Linux going the other way?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are your thoughts about Linux, which lately has been doing the opposite of what you suggest: it has been becoming more and more like Windows.

All of the major distros have switched to systemd. Systemd adheres much more to the Windows philosophy than to the UNIX philosophy.

For example, systemd uses binary logging, which is common within the Windows world but pretty much unheard of on UNIX-style systems.

Systemd also takes a very monolithic approach, with it trying to provide far more core functionality than an init system should be providing. This goes against the UNIX "do only one thing, and do it well" philosophy, but is much closer to what's common in Windows.

It isn't just systemd, of course. GNOME 3 is another good example. Much like Windows 8, GNOME 3 is all about the UI "designers" telling the users what the users want, without actually considering what those users need and want. GNOME 3 even visually looks similar to Windows 8 and 10, in that well-established UI principles were thrown away for no good reason at all.

We see the major Linux distros and software becoming far more like Windows each and every day. That's why there has been so much division and strife within the Linux community lately. Linux users don't want what they're being force fed. That's why so many are moving to FreeBSD, which actually respects and tries to adhere to the traditional UNIX principles that have been so successful.

Xenix

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If you don't know what Microsoft Xenix is get off my lawn.

Re:Xenix

[Drishmung]

Netcraft confirms, FreeBSD is dyng... oh, wait...

Netcraft confirms, Microsoft is dying... um...

Ah! Netcraft confirms, Xenix is dying!

What's this I see?

[taniwha]

pigs with wings? devils in uggs?

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[jedidiah]

> Microsoft at one point was the #1 vendor of Unix systems, selling TRS-80 Unix systems at Radio Shack.

They might have been the largest corporation pushing it but they likely were not the biggest vendor ever.

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ven

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The T in TRS stands for Tandy, the company that made and sold it through Radio Shack (the RS, oddly enough). Microsoft had a small hand in some software related to one of the variants of the TRS-80 but the TRS was never a Microsoft product.

Dammit

[God of Lemmings]

Keep them the hell out of it. We don't need them in BSD too. It is enough that they were in Linux. They already ruined that through Redhat's Gnome and SystemD.

With blackjack, and hookers?

[Pfhorrest]

In fact, screw the FreeBSD.

Re:What do you think about Linux going the other w

[God of Lemmings]

Both of these come from Redhat you know, one vendor. Some of these guys working there just happened to have big roles at Microsoft.

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ven

[Anonymous Coward]

Xenix is unix you fucking pleb. Its more unix than linux or freebsd, its an actual licensed fully paid up unix.

You used xenix eh? But forgot it was unix lol. Why are 80% of slash posters so full of shit? Is it really just the Apps kids left?

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[RabidReindeer]

"Best selling" on Unix/Linux, however, is deceptive. These days a lot of the most popular programs for those platforms are free and open-source. Libre/OpenOffice, for example.

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[Anonymous Coward]

"Best selling" on Unix/Linux, however, is deceptive.

how so? revenue is revenue!

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ven

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft had a small hand in some software related to one of the variants of the TRS-80

they wrote the FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM for the TRS-80 Xenix systems

stupid posts without paragraphs

[Anonymous Coward]

We get it.

You want your post to be seen.

But you know something?

I prefer the use of paragraphs.

Welcome to first grade.

Or maybe that was your target audience all along?

Not going to happen

[swm]

the only way Windows will become truly stable [...] will be for it to adopt a UNIX architecture

Not going to happen.

I left Windows years ago, partly for the reason that the OS was so badly engineered.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Microsoft needs lock-in to maintain their monopoly, and lock-in needs incompatibility.

An OS is its architecture.
If Windows adopts a Unix architecture, then Windows becomes Unix.
If Windows becomes Unix, then customers have their choice: Windows, Linux, BSD, whatever.
No more lock-in, no more monopoly, no more Microsoft.

And the "badly engineered" part? Well, Unix OSs tend to be well engineered. And if the defining characteristic of Windows is that it is incompatible with well engineered OSs, then pretty much of necessity Windows is going to be badly engineered.

I wouldn't touch it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't download it. They are trying to save face because everybody knows they are a us government spy shop.

Scared of Linux/Vulkan/Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously Microsoft is very scared of the Linux/Vulkan/Steam combination and is hedging theirs bets in an attempt to mitigate the looming threat.

According to Microsoft, this is in fact the year of the Linux Desktop.

I joked

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I've joked about "MS Linux" for years, and now it looks like my worst fears have come true.

Re:I joked

[Anonymous Coward]

..and then you win.

But we are not there yet. Microsoft adopted xBSD, not Linux. This is nothing more than MS doing the same what Apple did. Yet again.

Cornerstone of Hotmail and other services

[ChrisBachmann]

Should this be a surprise to anyone? BSD was a cornerstone of Hotmail and other web projects that Microsoft has had. They probably have the 2nd largest FreeBSD deployment outside of Yahoo.

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the Office for Mac install base blows LibreOffice and OpenOffice out of the water.

Re:What do you think about Linux going the other w

[Barsteward]

more old blah crap blah nonsense blah bollox.... move on, the train has left the station......

Re:What do you think about Linux going the other w

[Barsteward]

the queue for tin foil hats is just around the corner.....

BSD

[Apostalypse]

Blue Screen of Death?

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it will be called FreeBSOD

Re:Microsoft is historically a prominent unix vend

[silentcoder]

Considering the libreoffice runs on a whole bunch of operating systems - including Mac and Windows as well as Linux, I sincerely doubt that.

Telemetry trojans coming to FreeBSD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean microsoft will be poisoning FreeBSD with telemetry, like what is in windows 10? Are the FreeBSD maintainers watching out for microsoft trojan horses being introduced into their code?

NSA Back doors upstreamed too?

[LinuxLuver]

Is anyone scrutinizing the code they upload for backdoors? It's no secret that Microsoft Windows is a key part of the NSA's surveillance tool set.

terminals

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is: Does Microsoft BSD come with a real console/terminal, or the arcane, annoying, un-configurable cmd.exe?

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ven

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at his user-id, I think we can't be quite certain that he's never used Xenix.

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ven

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Microsoft had a small hand in some software related to one of the variants of the TRS-80
> they wrote the FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM for the TRS-80 Xenix systems

Nope. MS licensed it from AT&T and sold it; SCO wrote the code. Tandy did the TRS-80 port based on SCO's code.

Thank you for informative video

[Anonymous Coward]

https://youtu.be/lDXsw2ijRkw

@~~28:00 he goes on to explain that libpan-systemd ,which is a way for systemd to provide control groups over programs which have opted into letting systemd enforce this mechanism, creates a number of "fake" dependencies which are actually only needed by systemd.

If you install the correct dependency package, you can remove systemd without uninstalling core system packages.

Now I have hope that one day, I too shall uninstall systemd.

Re: Microsoft is historically a prominent unix ve

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried from /. mobile site, and it keeps loading this story instead of his profile. Somethings broken.

hahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

good try