Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
...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?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
You know how I know that you have no real understanding of IT?
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.
file:
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.
"Due to a Windows Update server misconfiguration, users who clicked "yes" to upgrade to Windows 10 after 10 June 2016 found themselves running BSD."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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?
file:
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
and more
You know, like every other cloud vendor's VM images. Nothing to see here, move along.
So, stop Hyper-Ventilating! ;-)
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.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
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.
Blue Screen of Death?
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News