Will Linux Innovation Be Driven By Microsoft? (infoworld.com)

Adobe's VP of Mobile (and a former intellectual property lawyer) sees "a very possible future where Microsoft doesn't merely accept a peaceful coexistence with Linux, but instead enthusiastically embraces it as a key to its future," noting Microsoft's many Linux kernel developers and arguing it's already innovating around Linux -- especially in the cloud. An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld: Even seemingly pedestrian work -- like making Docker containers work for Windows, not merely Linux -- is a big deal for enterprises that don't want open source politics infesting their IT. Or how about Hyper-V containers, which marry the high density of containers to the isolation of traditional VMs? That's a really big deal...

Microsoft has started hiring Linux kernel developers like Matthew Wilcox, Paul Shilovsky, and (in mid-2016) Stephen Hemminger... Microsoft now employs 12 Linux kernel contributors. As for what these engineers are doing, Linux kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman says, "Microsoft now has developers contributing to various core areas of the kernel (memory management, core data structures, networking infrastructure), the CIFS filesystem, and of course many contributions to make Linux work better on its Hyper-V systems." In sum, the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin declares, "It is accurate to say they are a core contributor," with the likelihood that Hemminger's and others' contributions will move Microsoft out of the kernel contribution basement into the upper echelons.
The article concludes that "Pigs, in other words, do fly. Microsoft, while maintaining its commitment to Windows, has made the necessary steps to not merely run on Linux but to help shape the future of Linux."

Comments

Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the drill.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know the drill of you posting this mindless idiocy and automatically bashing anything Microsoft does, without any research of your own. Stop spreading FUD about Microsoft.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor, defenceless, multi-billion-dollar Microsoft.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the hard truth. Microsoft has not changed its underlying culture. As soon as it feels it has enough power to do so, it will pervert the open source community around Linux. Even the summary already spells it out: "open source politics" as if that is bad. The corporations not wanting to participate in those politics, shouldn't be using open source software. I've (professionally) seen many examples in the past few years of Microsoft putting on an open source friendly face for their own benefit, and stabbing open source based companies in the back at the same time. All the development described here is for the benefit and enhancement of their own products, mainly because in the server space their lunch is being eaten by Linux. Once they feel they have what they need, they'll start fighting it again.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

If history wasn't inundated with examples of Microsoft doing exactly what the GP says, then maybe you would have a point. Stop astroturfing.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[thegarbz]

No I don't. What is the drill? Assume that a company that has wholly changed from actively attempting to squash competition on the desktop to being a cloud based services provider who already has close to 100% market share on the desktop still follows a strategy from 20 years ago?

EEE takes a lot of time, money and effort. So why would they do it? What is their incentive?

The desktop? Nope. They've shown to be able to fuck users quite badly without losing marketshare to Linux, so that's not a threat to them.
The server? Nope. Their desktop market share will maintain their server marketshare quite readily due to a lack of alternatives for Exchange, Sharepoint and Active Directory, so that's not a threat to them.
The cloud? Nope. Over 1/3rd of Azure runs on Linux for customer related reasons not server feature related reasons. There is no incentive to extinguish the system that underpins Microsoft's most profitable division.

Oh sorry. I get the point now. "the drill" is mindless bashing while using the least possible amount of braincells. Sorry, carry on then. Don't strain your brain too much.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

A company that has changed? ROFL. Companies does not change their culture that easily. In fact it's more common that they die because of their culture than that they manage to change it even when it's directly detrimental to them.

The desktop? Microsoft will only maintain its current position as long as the unthinking droids who keep them in their organisation are still in position. I've already seen organisations starting to wake up to the massive security liability Windows actually is, and the droids who think security isn't important are beginning to get kicked out.

Further, in the future as more and more people start to replace the Microsoft droids who has been their loyal base since the 80's, Microsoft will gain more and more bad will in the decision making sphere. These are people who have seen all the crap Microsoft has pulled over the years, and have made extensive use of free software including Linux. Remember, in a world where you develop for the web, Windows is not necessary. It's legacy, insecure garbage provided by a company with a dubious track record to say the least. Microsoft's share on the desktop can and will only go one way, which is why they are pushing so hard to EEE the entire PC. "Secure boot" is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at appropriating the entire PC.

The server: As I said. When you're developing for the web, Windows isn't necessary. And there are plenty of alternatives. FFS, AD is nothing but an example of EEE of OSS tech, like LDAP and Kerberos.

And the cloud.. Wow, you sure have your head stuck up your ass.

"The garbz" = "the ignorant idiot heap of garbage".

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see you bet your life on MS not doing it any more. Words are empty. Action matters. We have seen Microsoft act and it has not been pretty.

Linux managed just fine without Microsoft. It would still manage without it.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

EEE takes a lot of time, money and effort. So why would they do it? What is their incentive?[...]Exchange, Sharepoint and Active Directory, so that's not a threat to them.

Two out of three are examples of EEE themselves, and the third I frankly have no idea what it does except to enable the Snowdens of this world to do their thing.

Oh sorry. I get the point now. "the drill" is mindless astroturfing while using the least possible amount of braincells. Sorry, carry on then. Don't strain your brain too much.

FTFY, HTH, HAND.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that microsoft have entered into an agreement with Red Hat to share underlying operating system code then immediately microsoft started this running linux on top of windows crap, then Red Hat started this embrace of the linux ecosystem by releasing SystemD with its own version of control of the entire linux ecosystem. So again, tell me Microsoft and Red Hat haven't teamed up to EEE the entire linux software space. If you can't see what they are up to now, then you really are very blind and willfully ignorant not just of recent history, but of the actual reality you are seeing right now unfold in front of your eyes. Thats why all the died in the wool old linux hackers are migrating themselves to BSD. They can see the future and they are all running for the hills. Good Luck with microsoft biting at your heels and good luck Red Hat, you are going to be lucky to be in business in 5 years time. Seriously. Look at SCO. Broke.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, thats the new Google, embrace, terminate , try new shittier service, cant exit, AOL clone.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

This point was proven in court, nothing is stolen, nothing you imbecile.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Entrope]

Yup, and pushing garbage ideas like "enterprises that don't want open source politics infesting their IT" is part of that.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Lost Penguin]

Exactly, nothing bad EVER happens to Microsoft partners in the long term...... /ever heard of Stacker? QEMM? Novel DOS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QEMM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[K. S. Kyosuke]

automatically bashing anything Microsoft does

Didn't Microsoft itself bash Windows when they added bash to it in the WSL?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried with Java too. Having said that, they're welcome to it. It's shite.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I agree with the latter half.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[stooo]

Adobe and MS want to do things on Linux?
Run away ! FAAAAST !

Yes, Pigs can fly, but only once and downwards.
It usually ends with sausage-ready meat.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[packrat0x]

Not for long. The desktop market is shrinking and MSFT is spending money buying companies. Examine their SEC filings to see the decline in current assets and increase in "Goodwill". I hope these new hires are being paid salary/wages. MSFT stock options are not worth what they used to be.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[gtall]

Their incentive is that small devices might suck the oxygen out of MS. They know it, the rest of us hope for it. Stop trusting them, they don't trust you.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding about the lack of alternatives to exchange, sharepoint and active directory right?

Google Apps works great for e-mail in an office environment and you can connect Outlook to it if you want - though people often decide Outlook is not worth the hassle. Many companies outsource e-mail these days, it is not a core business function.

Sharepoint? Okay... if your org is committed to it already but I have never worked at a company that used it.

There are lots of LDAP alternatives to Active Directory. It makes sense if you're a windows shop to standardize on Windows but that's a different reason from saying there's no alternative to it.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

If history wasn't inundated with examples of Microsoft doing exactly what the GP says, then maybe you would have a point. Stop astroturfing.

All I see is a bunch of Anonymous Cowards repeating this claim without providing any real examples of it. When asked, the only response seems to be to twist and pervert the meaning of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. People try to claim that releasing a competing product is "embracing". And if another product stops being developed then it is "extinguishing" even if there was no "extend" involved.

It is not astroturfing to counter vague and baseless claims, no matter how much you believe it in your heart.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to you mindlessly accepting anything Microsoft does? Yeah, that's a lot more sensible...

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

How are any of those examples of embrace, extend, and extinguish? The Stac Electronics case found that while Microsoft did infringe on two of Stac's patents, the infringement was not willful. That's just a simple patent case, not EEE.

In the case of QEMM, Microsoft simply made a competing product. As for DR-DOS, a pre-release version of Windows 3.1 would not work on their DOS. No released version failed to run. What was embraced or extended or extinguished in either of those cases? I think the grandparent's post still stands.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoftâ(TM)s future lies in Azure, Office 365 and other services. I also expect them to continue to delve deeper into the hardware business.

Microsoft has already done for Windows 10 what Apple did for OS X. You buy new hardware that comes with an OS license and you get free OS upgrades for the âoelifeâ of the device. That model doesnâ(TM)t make sense if you donâ(TM)t produce your own hardware but it makes great sense if you do because you can inflate your profit margins on the hardware and then force devices into obsolescence by preventing free OS upgrades from being âoecompatibleâ by citing the age of the hardware.

Microsoft will still sell a lot of Windows licenses to users in the business world. So many line of business applications run only on Windows and as long as that remains the case then businesses have no choice but to keep paying the Microsoft tax when they buy new hardware.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[angel'o'sphere]

Microsoft probably killed 100 or more companies.
Perhaps you like to google the latest attempt I remember, the MS vs. Sun debacle about the attempt to kill Java?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[cyber-vandal]

Are any of those drop-in replacements for the Microsoft products?

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be missing something extremely obvious. When Linux was still very much a hobby toy OS some rather large companies such as IBM began paying developers to work on it. The main reason for this was to develop an operating system powerful and robust enough to stick it to Microsoft. IBM et al knew they would be beholden to Microsoft until the end of time if they didn't invest in something. Their own internal efforts were faltering and they could work with their competitors without working with their competitors against the common enemy of Microsoft on a product that could never really be killed by purchasing and burying, the changing winds of management at one company, etc.

What's Microsoft's goal in employing kernel devs? They want Linux tied to Windows. Developers will tend to gravitate towards the best tools for the job at the time. If you can draw in those developers who are developing on other platforms, give them the same tools they already know how to use, then you can polish the product better than it is, sell Windows and VS licenses, and they will probably pay it. Many of the FOSS tools devs use are not because of ideology or price. They just happen to be the right tool for the job.

And let's not forget this company has a ruthless reputation for all 40 years of its existence. You don't think they still are? When you install Google Chrome on Windows 10, the operating system "helpfully" suggests you're wasting your battery not running MS Edge. This is like going to a restaurant, ordering a burger, and the waiter "helpfully" suggesting a tofu burger because it's lower in cholesterol (and also because he's getting paid by tofu producers this week).

I doubt very much they are doing this for altruism to make a better product for all humanity. It enhances their bottom line in some way.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

The drill is in the title. MS MO: use an existing market share as leverage to extend the growth of other software that otherwise would not be able to compete as well. Embrace new technologies, or fields. Extend them to become incompatible with other implementations. Extinguish competition by changing systems so that others cannot become compatible with their systems, and use their existing leverage (with market share of other products) to compel users to use only their products.
Desktop: monopoly. check.
Server: prominent market share. check
Cloud: still room to grow. embrace linux kernel. Extend it to optimize MS only services. Extinguish competition by making it hard to leave linux hosts, given differences in cloud hosting.

You might not agree that this will work. You may not agree that it is the same thing. You may even have insider information that this is not the case. But, unless you are Nadella, if you simply shrug it off as "mindless bashing," I would suggest you actually do some thinking yourself.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[HiThere]

On what basis do you claim that Microsoft has changed? While this particular story says that some people within MS want to take advantage of Linux, other stories paint a very different picture of other actions. I see no reason whatsoever to trust them.

Please note that it is quite possible for certain individuals within the company to be enthusiastic supporters of Linux, while management continues to plot to tear it down. There is no contradiction there, and management determines corporate policy. (It's also happened historically that certain individuals within MS claimed to support Linux while their actions were quite destructive. Whether they realized the actions were destructive is not clear.)

Don't watch the PR line, watch their actions. That will tell you what they're doing, and takes a lot less time. PR lies to everyone, and have no qualms at all about lying to someone who isn't even a customer. But watching their actions doesn't give you as much lead time, so you need to play it safer...by avoiding dealing with them.

I, personally, try to avoid dealing with companies that have repeatedly lied to me.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

The problem with that example is that Java is the top ranked programming language on the TIOBE Index. In other words, there was no extinguish. Also, that example was from 1995. If that is the latest attempt then it doesn't seem like a pattern of behaviour.

So if there are 100 or more examples of them successfully embracing, extending and extinguishing, name one of those. You can probably easily name more than 100 examples where people have accused Microsoft of having that plan for something, but not one time when it has actually eventuated. In other words, it is FUD.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Insanity Defense]

In the Stacker case once the court ordered them to stop infringing they released a new version of DOS with the new compression software. They also changed the way such programs loaded and changed the EULA forbidding the reverse engineering of the method. The existing forms of Stacker of course could no longer load. A new version was released by Stacker reverse engineering the loading method and Microsoft promptly sued them and lost the case. The EULA mod was not legal. Stacker won but no longer exists, so who actually won?

The Stacker case is a perfect example of how Microsoft kills other companies.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[unixisc]

Microsoft, while maintaining its commitment to Windows,...

What commitment to Windows? These days, Windows has become exceedingly slow on my laptop while logging in, and also while opening and closing programs. Windows 10 Mobile has been badly crippled - WiFi is now undetectable.

While this laptop is currently working w/ Windows 10, when it dies, I'll get a mac. I have the TrueOS laptop as well, but updating it has so far proved elusive

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Nut-Jobs are bad, but the Micro$oft equivalent scares me a whole lot more.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[llamalad]

All I see is a relative noob who's either shilling for Microsoft or is arguing without having done any basic research.

Some examples, courtesy of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish ):

Browser incompatibilities:
The plaintiffs in the antitrust case claimed that Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in the Internet Explorer web browser to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape's own plugin system.
On CSS, data:, etc.: A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the web browser company Opera Software has filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union saying it "calls on Microsoft to adhere to its own public pronouncements to support these standards, instead of stifling them with its notorious 'Embrace, Extend and Extinguish' strategy".[13]
On Office documents: In a memo to the Office product group in 1998, Bill Gates stated: "One thing we have got to change in our strategyâ"allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples [sic] browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends [sic] on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destory [sic] Windows." [emphasis in original][14]
Breaking Java's portability: The antitrust case's plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an "embrace and extend" strategy with regard to the Java platform, which was designed explicitly with the goal of developing programs that could run on any operating system, be it Windows, Mac, or Linux. They claimed that, by omitting the Java Native Interface (JNI) from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose, Microsoft deliberately tied Windows Java programs to its platform, making them unusable on Linux and Mac systems. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java's cross-platform capability and make it "just the latest, best way to write Windows applications".[15] Microsoft paid Sun US$20 million in January 2001 (equivalent to $27.05 million in 2016) to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract.[16]
More Java issues: Sun sued Microsoft over Java again in 2002 and Microsoft agreed to settle out of court for US$2 billion[17][18] (equivalent to US$2.66 billion in 2016).
Networking: In 2000, an extension to the Kerberos networking protocol (an Internet standard) was included in Windows 2000, effectively denying all products except those made by Microsoft access to a Windows 2000 Server using Kerberos.[19] The extension was published through an executable, whose running required agreeing to an NDA, disallowing third party implementation (especially open source). To allow developers to implement the new features, without having to agree to the license, users on Slashdot posted the document (disregarding the NDA), effectively allowing third party developers to access the documentation without having agreed to the NDA. Microsoft responded by asking Slashdot to remove the content.[20] The Microsoft extensions to Kerberos, as introduced in binary form in Windows 2000, have since been described in RFC 3244 and RFC 4757, and these extensions have since been listed in Microsoft Open Specification Promise. This document relates to "Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement" the technologies listed. Microsoft's legal statement concerning unrestricted use of Microsoft intellectual property also includes the Kerberos Network Authentication Service v5 (RFC 1510 and RFC

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

But it is not a case of embrace, extend and extinguish. It was a simple patent dispute, which happens all the time. Microsoft didn't license Stacker, but instead licensed DoubleDisk from by Vertisoft (which then became DoubleSpace). They didn't attempt to make it compatible with Stacker, and then extend it as would be required by the EEE mantra. If Microsoft had selected Stacker for their disk compression, perhaps it would be Vertisoft that we would be talking about here. In which case, there was no way for Microsoft to make a choice that didn't backfire on them. I have no doubt that Vertisoft would have had its own patents to use against Microsoft. The real villain is the concept of software patents.

Also, what you said doesn't match what I have read about the subject. Microsoft did successfully counter-sue Stac Electronics for misappropriation of a trade secret. It was Stac Electronics that claimed it had reverse engineered the undocumented calls as a defense.

This did not stop Stacker from working, and a later version of the product was even able to convert a DoubleSpace compressed drives into their own format.

It was a big blow to Stac Electronics to have Microsoft include a compression utility in DOS, but their product did have a limited lifespan. It only worked on FAT drives, meaning NTFS and HPFS on OS/2 would not work. Also, as drives increased in size, the need for compression died off. They continued for another eight years after the lawsuit before the company eventually was dissolved. Is it really that clear-cut that Microsoft killed this company?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[angel'o'sphere]

The point is they tried to extinguish Java.

From where the term EEE comes, I leave up to your GOOGLE skills, I guess YOU find much more than 100 examples where they succeeded.

Or do you really thing the world does MS an injustice by inventing the term EEE ... how old are you?

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[thegarbz]

Their incentive is that small devices might suck the oxygen out of MS.

That's not an incentive to extinguish Linux, that's an incentive to try that with Android.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[thegarbz]

Oh there is an alternative. The open source alternatives are about equivalent to Exchange and Active Directory ... in 1998. The are precisely zero open source alternatives that are feature comparable.

Many companies outsource e-mail these days, it is not a core business function.

Many do. The problem with writing something like "many" is that it's not a qualifier. Tell me a percentage, preferably a percentage of Fortune 500 companies with licenses for 50000+ users.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[thegarbz]

On what basis do you claim that Microsoft has changed?

I didn't say it changed. Microsoft are still arseholes. There is no reason to trust them.

But there's also no reason to think that this is part of the EEE strategy, a strategy that hasn't been employed in over 15 years, a strategy that makes zero sense in the current context of the market (specifically the "threat" Linux poses to them), and a strategy that would undermine their current core profitable business.

I'm sure they'll be dicks about it some other way, but it just doesn't make sense that they would even try and extinguish Linux, not when they are making so much money from it.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the Microsoft products dop-in replace those? Say yes, and confirm that you're a liar...

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[thegarbz]

All the development described here is for the benefit and enhancement of their own products, mainly because in the server space their lunch is being eaten by Linux.

Oh is it? The way I see their server business has been on a dedicated upwards trend and has never been more profitable than it is now. They have several wonderful vendor locking products without any competition at all in open source. Oh and you're ignoring the shitload of money they make with Linux by offering Linux themselves for the Azure platform.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

Ah, I was waiting for someone to copy and paste that list.

• Active-X controls - the complaint here is that Microsoft made their own incompatible plug-in system instead of using Netscape's incompatible plug-in system. Let's face it, Netscape were quite happy to make their own extensions to HTML. It was the done thing in the day (especially as standards moved at such a glacial pace).
• CSS - at the time of the Opera lawsuit that claimed EEE, Microsoft had already released IE7 which included support for new and better web standards. Every version they have released have made things incrementally better. The big problem was the long time that IE6 stuck around, which was of course due to the delays in making Windows Vista. This was the big disadvantage of tying IE version to Windows versions. But can this be said to be a case of EEE when each version makes fewer extensions? I think not.
• Office - Microsoft were definitely very protective and proprietary, but what did the EEE? It was their own Office package on their own server platorms and browsers. They didn't have to embrace anything for that. It's a dick move, but not EEE.
• Java - This is the daddy of EEE. The only problem is that Java is still the most used language according to the TIOBE index, so there was no extinguishing. Frankly, I think it hurt the language to lose having the code run be default on Windows. It would have been better for Sun to insist that Microsoft include their runtime in Windows so developers had certainty that their programs would run with minimal setup.
• Kerberos - This is definitely an example of EE, but once again not of EEE.
• Instant messaging - AIM hasn't been extinguished, although development did stop ten years after that article was written. They also kept changing their protocols to block Yahoo! Messenger and MSN Messenger. Not a good example.
• Adobe fears - This one is definitely FUD, especially considering that Office now does have PDF support and yet the standard hasn't gone tits-up yet.
• Employee testimony - Well, that's just Java again.

None of this shows any reason how Microsoft could even hope to extinguish the Linux kernel. If they are contributing to someone else's open source project then the code belongs to everyone and their contributions can be used by anybody.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[llamalad]

You were waiting for that because... it's your job to respond with canned talking points?

Hope you get a sweet bonus! Keep up the good work.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

So in other words, you couldn't find an example. Once again, a single instance from 20 years ago does not prove a pattern of behaviour. The Linux kernel is not in any danger, no matter how many times people chant that three-word mantra.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

That's rich, coming from someone who's entire argument is to copy and paste from Wikipedia. And I'm the one doing the canned talking points???

It's not really much of a challenge here. If there is a story about Microsoft then someone will inevitably make a post just saying "Embrace, extend, extinguish" as if that is something useful or insightful. Then we get long quotes from Wikipedia followed by accusations of being a shill. Is it really that hard to put some original thought into something?

For example, have a think about how Microsoft could ever get some extensions that could lead to extinguishing the kernel project past Linus Torvalds. Let's face it, if he spotted anything even remotely suspicious coming from Microsoft he would hardly be one to hold his tongue about it.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[llamalad]

Straw man argument.

Look at the train wreck that is SystemD.

One doesn't need Linus' approval to corrupt the ecosystem. Just to enlist the various distributions' maintainers.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the java lawsuit is well known.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to read a 10-K filing doesn't mean you actually understand it

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems in your world any attempt by Microsoft to compete with any other company or product is an example of EEE. They should only ship bug fixes for products that have existed since 1992 is that your position?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

Straw man argument.

How is it a straw man argument to ask how Microsoft could get bad code into the kernel when the summary is all about Microsoft has 12 Linux kernel contributors and quotes a Linux kernel maintainer about what code they are contributing to the Linux kernel?

Look at the train wreck that is SystemD.

Here is a great example of how Microsoft can't extinguish the operating system, because you can still get distros that don't use systemd. Even if they screwed up systemd, to the point where nobody could boot we could still get around it. It's all open source, after all.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[chispito]

Even the summary already spells it out: "open source politics" as if that is bad.

If you read TFA, you will see that this phrase is a link to a story about a Node.js fork caused by an interpersonal issue. So avoiding "open source politics" makes a lot of sense in this context.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Tough Love]

The desktop market is shrinking...

And so Microsoft's data centers are becoming a relatively larger component of revenue. Linux is by far the most efficient way to run a data center, hence Microsoft's interest.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[llamalad]

Someday I'll learn not to tangle with paid shills. Sadly, that day is not today.

You asserted that Microsoft can't do their embrace, extend, extinguish thing to Linux because Mr Torvalds wouldn't allow it, would bitch about it, whatever.

That's a straw man argument because it's deliberately conflating Linux with Linus.

SystemD is specifically relevant in pointing out the your argument's lack of merit because based on his comments he's clearly not a fan and yet it's now built into every major distribution.

Open Source software is not invulnerable to MS' E,E,E strategy. It's the "extend" part that is particularly insidious and leads to the "extinguish" bit.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Entrope]

What, intercompany politics never cause problems for IT departments? Like Java or SCO lawsuits?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

Once again, the subject here is Microsoft submitting code to the Linux kernel which is definitely under the watch of Linus Torvalds. It is you who is making the straw man argument by extending this to systemd. Just because you are not right doesn't make me a paid shill.

And I still haven't had anybody be able to tell me how an open source project could be extinguished by Microsoft's code submissions. The submissions are completely visible to all and can be undone by anyone who has access to the code - which is all of us! Just restating that "extend" leads to "extinguish" without any proof simply shows that you are a zealot. Someday I'll learn not to tangle with zealots who think that anyone who doesn't blindly agree with them must be a paid shill.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously a troll on payroll. It's good to show others how wrong scepticism can be though. It kills truth and wisdom when overdone. Try to live a meaningful life.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

You've failed to make the argument why MS breaking partnership deals isnt Embrace Extend Extinguish and why anybody should trust MS.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

They never had a partnership deal with Stac Electronics. They chose Vertisoft instead.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

I can't believe that you would trot out that "troll on a payroll" line in response to me saying

Someday I'll learn not to tangle with zealots who think that anyone who doesn't blindly agree with them must be a paid shill.

If I was a Microsoft shill, would I say:

I hate Windows 10 with a passion, and am hugely disappointed with the direction Microsoft have taken Windows since Win7. I like C# and PowerShell, and yet I can't bring myself to installing them on Linux because I don't trust Microsoft to not spy on me.

If I was a Microsoft shill, would I say:

Web pages are also horrible in Edge. There really is nothing that it can do right.

If I am on Microsoft's payroll, then I'm going to have to face some awkward questions for badmouthing the company and its products.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[cyber-vandal]

No they aren't but that wasn't my question. Do you have an answer?

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[angel'o'sphere]

I other words: I asked you to seek them yourself, I'm to lazy to teach a guy who is to lazy to google for himself :D

I would not wonder if there is not even an wikipedia article about it, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... oO, there is!

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Gadget_Guy]

I have already covered the examples from Wikipedia. It was a bust.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

The data centers won't last forever if msft doesn't wake up. The biggest server hosting company in my country just booted Microsoft licenses out completely, going full open source, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

Re: Embrace, extend, extinguish

[KingBenny]

microfag lost all credit when it banned my account for "we don't have to give you a reason" stop defending clear corporate monopolisation

no

[Anonymous Coward]

BY LINUS TORVALS

Re:no

[fph il quozientatore]

Not enough expletives to be a Linusrant (TM).

linux is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

The linux developer paid for by redmond is not the true linux developer.

Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Billly Gates]

MS has backed up it's words with c#, .net core, Microsoft code editor, SQL server, and Git VFS all ported to Linux. Also Ubuntu for Windows 10 is coming along nicely as well.

Competition is good and since it's now the 2010s I hope most slashdoters realize as Microsoft's new CEO realized. That the 1990s are over.

I feel MS is really worried about losing web developers which explains Ubuntu for Windows as well as Android emulators and Python into VS 2017 (no folks you did not misread that.)

Time will tell

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sql server runs on a compatibility layer, and that layer runs on Linux.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

No he is not!!!

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Dutch Gun]

Shut up Trump supporter. No one cares what you think!

That's similar to what I told the Ubuntu for Windows subsystem. Shut up Linux emulator! No one cares what you thunk!

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

You hot the nail on the head: Microsoft is worried. That is their motivation. Not a true, well meant change of heart. And as soon as they think they can get away with it, they'll revert to being the big, mean Microsoft on the outside, too, again keeping everything to themselves once more and extinguishing as much of others as they can.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's 2010's indeed and soon 2020's. And today, I actually fear more the likes of Google and Apple than Microsoft.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

> MS has backed up it's words with c#
> all ported to Linux

Ok, it's time to port Xamarin Studio (or fscking new Visual Studio for macOS) to Linux.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

So you went from Ms to Apple to Google with you fear.

The company that gets to the top, you fear.

You don't see this pattern in your thinking? Do you think it's coincidence that your fear correlates with the company at the top.

Microsoft is not a PERSON, but a COMPANY.

Their goal like ANY company is to MAKE MONEY, beat out COMPETITION.

They have done well in this. One must be at the top. Don't think for a second any other company wouldn't be like this if they are in a TOP POSITION.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[LesFerg]

Xamarin Studio was based on MonoDevelop, which already ran on Linux, so how hard could that be?

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

> I hope most slashdoters realize as Microsoft's new CEO realized. That the 1990s are over.

I was going to make a snarky comment about this being /. and you being naïve and all of that, but other posters have made my point for me.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Microsoft is making a lot of money with Linux hosting inside Azure. This will make them more. It isn't worry, it is a great way to boost profits.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, SQL Server runs on Linux.

Stop being an autist. If you knew anything about open source RDBMSes like MySQL and PostgreSQL you'd know that they also have abstraction layers to hide the underlying OS. I'd be highly surprised if SQL Server didn't have something similar.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[HiThere]

Only if the Linux system is embedded in a computer that's running MSWindows.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[HiThere]

Do you find that convincing? I don't. Those things don't help Linux, they only help MS. What license are they under?

P.S.: I found .net.core is basically useless without the rest of it. I looked at using it when they announced it was released. Most of the others I haven't even looked at, and don't intend to. C# could be interesting, but the last time I looked it wasn't, I don't remember the details of why, but it had to do with the interesting parts being tied to MSWindows.

So basically that list of things is all tied to MSWindows, and being able to run the parts on some other system doesn't change that at all. It's a PR ploy, not a contribution.

Re: Guess better than suing or being assholes

[UnknowingFool]

Yet MS still does things that make us question them. Windows 10's misleading and forced upgrades happened this decade if you want to ignore that.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you mean about .NET Core being useless. Without touching a Windows machine, you can build/run libraries and console apps on Linux. It doesn't support GUIs, which might be what you mean. I'd also say it's, at best, beta-quality software at the moment, and cannot really recommend using it until it stabilizes more.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about those who careers were squashed and stomped by the ambitions of Microsoft employees. What is Microsoft going to do to put that right?

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[shutdown -p now]

Do you find that convincing? I don't. Those things don't help Linux, they only help MS. What license are they under?

Mostly MIT license these days; some projects that were open sourced earlier (like Python support in Visual Studio) are Apache license.

P.S.: I found .net.core is basically useless without the rest of it. I looked at using it when they announced it was released. Most of the others I haven't even looked at, and don't intend to. C# could be interesting, but the last time I looked it wasn't, I don't remember the details of why, but it had to do with the interesting parts being tied to MSWindows.

You must have been looking at something else, because the whole point of .NET Core was to untie the ecosystem from Windows, and none of the things that run on Core require Windows. It's certainly perfectly usable by itself (plus ASP.NET Core, which is also fully cross-platform, with .NET Core being its sole dependency) to create web applications, for example.

Visual Studio Code runs on OS X and Linux. SQL Server runs on Linux.

Seriously, have you actually looked at any of that stuff since, oh, ten years ago?

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[HiThere]

If they are indeed open source, then the MIT license would make them interesting if they did something I wanted to do. So that's a plus. .NET core was unable to build GUIs, without additional libraries that hadn't been released (perhaps that's changed) which was its sole advantage over other approaches. But it probably could have been used for other things, if it had seemed worth learning. (Since I had no reason to pick up C#, they would have needed to be very good reasons.) At the time I stopped using MSWindows ASP was a notoriously insecure approach that anyone who cared about security avoided. Perhaps they've fixed that. Etc.

But you're right, it's been nearly a decade (possibly longer) since I've been willing to even look seriously at a MS offering. There's too much else that doesn't come with their normal strings and hassles. I probably couldn't even look at their web site (this is a guess) without disabling my ad-blocker, which I'm definitely not willing to do for a site run by someone who has so frequently proven themselves untrustworthy.

Re:Guess better than suing or being assholes

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is that .NET has never had something that would be a ready fit for a cross-platform GUI framework, historically

There was Windows Forms and WPF, but both of these are Windows-specific frameworks to begin with. WinForms is so tied to Win32 concepts (window handles and messages etc) that it cannot conceivably be ported - Mono tried that, and they eventually had to resort to reusing Wine code to do so, and ditch any attempts to use platform-native look and feel. WPF can conceptually run outside of Windows by design, but the implementation has a lot of native code that's intimately tied to Direct3D, so managing that is a Sisyphean task (indeed, Microsoft hasn't even ported WPF to Direct3D 11 to date!). There's a third party project called Avalonia that tries to reimplement it from scratch, but the sheer size and scope of a full-fledged modern UI framework means that they aren't going to ship a stable version anytime soon.

Realistically, when GUI comes to .NET Core, it would probably be Xamarin's XWT (to remind, Xamarin is currently owned by Microsoft). Given that Xamarin still ships MonoDevelop / Xamarin Studio (now rebranded as Visual Studio for Mac for the world at large - although MonoDevelop is still there on Linux), they might have some interest in a cross-platform .NET GUI. Currently they're using Gtk# for that, and running on Mono, but it's clear that .NET Core is going to subsume Mono long term.

In the meantime, .NET Core is focused almost entirely on the server side of things. I suppose a good way to think of it is a Java-like platform that offers a similar but more powerful and more thoroughly modernized language; a more lightweight, slimmer runtime that is designed to ship self-contained with the app; and modern package-based dependency management for libraries and frameworks (instead of Java's and traditional .NET "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to stdlib). Oh, and licensing - the runtime and all the standard libraries in the stack are MIT. All development is out in the open on GitHub, too.

As far as ASP security - ASP.NET had nothing in common with ASP of old (back when it was still Active Server Pages, with "Active" being a reference to ActiveX), except for the name, because branding. ASP.NET MVC was, in turn, a near-complete replacement for the original ASP.NET, reusing some low-level bits of the stack (HTTP request handling and such). The most recent incarnation, ASP.NET Core is a complete rewrite of everything from scratch for .NET Core, but with design strongly reminiscent of MVC, with various legacy bits trimmed, and the rest simplified and made more flexible (e.g. the entire HTTP pipeline is componentized, to make it easy to swap servers etc). I'm not aware of any fundamental security issues in it - although of course, as with any framework, security depends on how you use it.

Same old story

[DNS-and-BIND]

We have seen this so many times from Microsoft. This strategy made them a successful megabillion dollar company, so it's completely understandable why they keep using it.

1. Embrace (you are here)
2. Extend
3. Extinguish

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

Came here for this, did not leave disappointed. Yeah sure, EEE makes sense if you're completely blind to what MS has done in the past 10 years, but it fails the sniff test and also doesn't make sense if you apply any thought at all.

They have zero incentive to extinguish Linux. It isn't costing them even a spec of market share. For all the fucking over of users, for the privacy invasions, for the forced updates, for the unusable hardware... their desktop market share has given up but a rounding error to Linux. While their desktop market doesn't budge, their server market won't either as Linux has absolutely nothing to offer comparable to Active Director + Sharepoint + Exchange.

On the flipside the single most profitable part of their business (cloud services) are incredibly dependent on Linux with over 1/3rd of Azure instances running the OS.

So sure, maybe you're right, or maybe they won't shoot the goose which lays golden eggs.

Re:Same old story

[DNS-and-BIND]

This is why you don't get a bad reputation. Microsoft knew what they were doing and didn't care. A lot of people in tech, including me, suffered under their reign. If the stench of their foul deeds follows them for decades, well, that's their own fault. Following that strategy made them into the megabillion dollar success that they are today. And here they are following the same strategy again. Have they apologized? Showed remorse? Paid reparations? If not why should anyone believe that the tiger changed its stripes?

"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it."
-- Jean-Louis Gassee, CEO Be, Inc.

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

Yeah sure, EEE makes sense if you're completely blind to what MS has done in the past 10 years,

You mean like force spyware on users? Microsoft is still the same gang of shitlords they have always been.

They have zero incentive to extinguish Linux. It isn't costing them even a spec of market share.

Who told you that? Why did you believe them?

For all the fucking over of users, for the privacy invasions, for the forced updates, for the unusable hardware... their desktop market share has given up but a rounding error to Linux.

So what? Linux has cut into the server market, and it's cutting deeper still every day. And the non-desktop is cutting into the desktop market, and Linux leads the non-desktop market in the form of Android.

On the flipside the single most profitable part of their business (cloud services) are incredibly dependent on Linux with over 1/3rd of Azure instances running the OS.

And that's why Microsoft is scared. As that ratio grows, Windows looks less and less compelling. At the point at which you're not using Windows any more, why would you need Microsoft? You can run your Linux VMs anywhere.

Re:Same old story

[Kjella]

Yeah, the threat to Microsoft is not that Linux is taking over the desktop, it's that the desktop is in considerable decline from 365 million to 270 million units/year. And it's in absolute decline in a booming market where at the same time you've gone from selling 472 million to 1.5 billion smartphones a year. The same trend is confirmed by browsing statistics. It's not dying, but it's not the future. And I don't understand how you can say their server platform is not threatened and at the same time say 1/3rd of the Azure instances run Linux, yes if you got Windows desktops you'll probably have a AD/Exchange/Sharepoint server but my guess is they're an ever smaller corner of a virtualized server, just like any PC can manage to run MS Office.

It's clear that Microsoft's big plan for the future is to get businesses hooked on Azure services and consumers to give a 30% cut at the store, the product is just a means to an end like how Google delivers you Android so you'll talk to all the Google services and buy from the Play store. Everything else is a hook to get you to use it, if you have to make the tools free and open source that's what they'll do. As in, I think Microsoft is going to a place where releasing a "Windows Open Source Project" wouldn't hurt them more than Google's "Android Open Source Project", because that's not really the moneymaker. If Microsoft can make money selling ice skates, don't be surprised if hell freezes over...

Re:Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

beos, on over priced hardware, idiot.

Re:Same old story

[jon3k]

Microsoft doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and I sacrifice nothing by just avoiding them entirely. Microsoft only cares about Linux as long as it's profitable or until they can find a way to displace it with some product they can sell you. Their interests do not inherently align with mine, they just happen to overlap somewhat at the moment.

Re:Same old story

[angel'o'sphere]

1)Active Director + 2) Sharepoint + 3) Exchange.
1) LDAP, dozens of implementations
2) git, SVN etc.
3) mail standards like iCalc/MIME, SMTP, POP, IMAP.

Sorry, but you are _indeed_ an idiot.

And everything above can be backed up with standard tools. Sharepoint not so much.

Re:Same old story

[lucifer_666]

I take pleasure in finding and using open source technologies where they deliver somewhat of an equivalent experience to their commercial counterparts.

But if you think there are LDAP implementations that even come close to the level of control and ability provided by AD, you need to have another look at AD. LDAP isn't going to give you group policy, one of the core uses of AD.

git and SVN are primarily version control tools. I guess some use Sharepoint for version control, but it is really focused on document management, and it's really good at that.

But really the comparison between Exchange and mail standards baffles me. Yes, there is potential in CalDAV / CardDAV with IMAP 4 giving something like Exchange in that you have a mail, calendar and contact system. But development work is almost negligible, and while most web servers come with some implementation of those three technologies, there are basically zero clients that support all three, out of the box, well, and pale in comparison to the functionality of Outlook. Even Android doesn't support CalDAV and CarDAV.

While the open source ideas are there in theory, the actual software is non-existent or poorly implemented.

Calling that fellow an "idiot" was unreasonable.

Re:Same old story

[angel'o'sphere]

Your examples might be _extend_ examples, and for 2) I could have given a document management system standard, but my standpoint holds.
The three examples your parent gave are simply bollocks and prime examples for Microsofts EEE strategy.

I worked with the early implementations of Sharepoint, It was an unbackable version control system for office documents with some Wikis surrounding them.

For that we have Atlassian Confluence since ... 15 years?

Comparing Exchange/Outlook with open standards is an insult. That this baffles you is no wonder ...
Outlook is an horrible unusable mess, no idea how you can think otherwise. Every funky standard feature the competition has, you have to google how to activate/use it, and then it only works half assed.

My Mac happily connects to an exchange server, so does my android stuff. And: I have every damn functionality in its own App instead of an unusable monster. You can not even read emails in Outlook while you are using the calendar, are you retarded? The stupid way how the 'find this email/person in the address book' in outlook/mail ... hÃ? Who invented this bollocks? I need that every day, it nearly never works as 'expected'. I'm expected to learn how the machine works ... O'RLLY? In 2017?

There are hundreds of OS group ware tools, web based, that connect to an Exchange server. But why would they, when everything exchange gives can be done with email and MIME attachments?

Re:Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

The main advantages in computing have all come from Microsoft, going back to the 1950's. Linux has just copied them. Microsoft has donated thousands of dollars. How much cash has Linux donated?

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

If not why should anyone believe that the tiger changed its stripes?

You shouldn't believe anything, you should just use your brain and analyse the situation of the day. I didn't say MS aren't douchbags, I said that EEE doesn't make any sense in the context of their current business when applied to Linux.

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

Were you born with disconnect between your brain and your fingers, or did you learn to take half sentences out of context and completely fail to see the fucking point?

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

Microsoft doesn't get the benefit of the doubt

Didn't give them any. Just pointed out that EEE doesn't make sense in their business context.

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

Sorry, but you are _indeed_ an idiot.

hahahahahahah. Oh myself, Microsoft and all the Fortune 500 companies which use none of your solutions are laughing at this. Thanks for the Sunday night comedy. hAHahaha mail standards = exchange. Oh that's a good one. I'll have to remember that for my next stand-up routine.

No seriously though, it's clear you don't work in IT and have never touched exchange, sharepoint, or Active Directory. It's not your fault that you're completely ignorant as to their deep integration with Windows and Office on a level that any 3rd party tool couldn't hope to ever achieve. Get yourself an education.

Re:Same old story

[angel'o'sphere]

It is actually pretty clear that I work in IT, and that we all hate:
AD
Sharepoint
Exchange

Those are not standard, they are MS bullshit "EXTEND" ideas.

I basically work since 15 years in Java projects where we replace the outside requirements to interface with e.g. AD and Exchange.

Which is actually from the Java standpoint pretty straight forward, as those systems interface with Java, but the rest of the IT wants to get rid of them,

It's not your fault that you're completely ignorant as to their deep integration with Windows and Office on a level that any 3rd party tool couldn't hope to ever achieve.

And you are pretty ignorant how many systems need to import an Excel sheet, but don't need to fetch it from Sharepoint. A traditional ftp to a watched directory on a unix host is enough.

The MS tools don't solve problems. They create work for MS tool fans/experts. That is all.

Re:Same old story

[KingMotley]

And that's why Microsoft is scared. As that ratio grows, Windows looks less and less compelling.

And what makes you think that Microsoft considers Windows a critical piece of their future? Take off your blinders, and wake up to 5 years ago.

Re:Same old story

[Billly Gates]

I have seen your post got marked down -2 in the last 24 hours. You know oddly I find slashdot and it's anti slashdot cousin www.neowin.net so biased. I tend to now go here and then go to www.neowin.net. to see the same arguments in reverse.

Sadly neowin.net the folks are not afraid of change and laughed at those clinging to XP while slashdot rated them +5. The anti MS hate here sounds as silly as railing against Linux because IBM mainframes are the doom of us all if we let IBM have it's ways. We need MS to liberate us to protect us from them etc. That would sound weird in 2017. Yet, those who have not touched Windows since Windows 98SE which was DOS based I may add think Windows is just as unstable as 20 years ago and you are an idiot or work for Microsoft if you disagree.

I think those who were 25 in 1999 when slashdot.org was hip are 40+ today and stuck in their ways living in the past. I wouldn't bother with some of them.

You know I was a MS hater too at one time hence my name and would love an alternative reality where Steve Jobs won back in 1999 .... today that thought scares the shit out of me! Any company including the once loved Apple which was open in hardware and standards became evil once they had control including what they are today. Microsoft seems tame compared to Apple today or IBM of long ago. They are companies and without competition of course they will be evil as that is their job to the shareholders.

Re: Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool me once....

Btw you dont make the sniff test either. Why go to such lengths apologizing for ms? In some respects they have adapted, but for whos benefit?

Re: Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

Bought up by ms you mean?

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

You know I was a MS hater too

We all were. The difference is why, did we hate them because we were being objective and they were bastards, or did we do it because we were anti-establishment and prayed only to the almighty lord Stallman.

The former will hate MS for reasons that we can legitimately hate them (e.g. Bundling problems and privacy issues in Windows 10). The latter will hate them with 10 year old tripes that don't apply if you dedicated a functioning braincell to them (e.g. calling everything EEE).

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

And what makes you think that Microsoft considers Windows a critical piece of their future?

They actually went out of their way to force the latest windows on consumers, and you don't think they think it's important? Turn on your brain, son.

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

Were you born with disconnect between your brain and your fingers,

I had to learn to use both, same as everyone. I did better than most at both.

or did you learn to take half sentences out of context and completely fail to see the fucking point?

I learned how to read between the lines, and see the context that the author themselves missed. I get a lot of practice on Slashdot, because so many people typically just blurt here and fail to consider the import of the things they're talking about.

Re:Same old story

[thegarbz]

I learned how to read between the lines, and see the context that the author themselves missed.

So you're reading something that wasn't said and replying to something the author didn't say.

so many people typically just blurt here and fail to consider the import of the things they're talking about.

You don't say!

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

So you're reading something that wasn't said and replying to something the author didn't say.

I'm reading what was said, and I'm deciding that it's wrong. Just like what you're doing and simultaneously complaining about, hypocrite.

Re:Same old story

[lucifer_666]

Which open source standard system allows me to schedule a meeting with 5 people and a resource like a room, simultaneously viewing their calendars to find a time when everyone is available? What open source software can I install that gives me that?

What open source program can I install right now that provides me with group calendar, contact and email - not personal calendars or contacts, calendars and contacts stored on the server that can be shared between users? Calendars and contacts and email that sync with multiple devices in real time?

Which open source standard allows me to configure email rules that are executed on the server, from my client, with no access to the server itself? For example, pre-sort mail into folders when received, rather than when my desktop client is available to do it? Again, what program can I install to do this?

There is a big difference between "can be done" and "you can download this program which does what you need."

Yes, there are many protocols and standards that replicate some of the functionality Exchange offers. Yes, there are email clients that are quite mature. But there seems to be nothing in the open source world that comes close to replacing Exchange.

As for not showing your calendar while reading email? Please. View | To-Do Bar | Calendar.

Re:Same old story

[Billly Gates]

I hated them because Windows 98/DOS were terrible and I remember as child doing hacks with memaker with expanded vs extended ram while Mac users didn't ahve this problem. My father talked about OS/2 and Unix from work that didn't have these laughable problems.

Linux in 1999 had incredible software while Visualc++ boxed learning edition was crippled for games. Linux had non crippled GCC and you could hack to the nth degree.

I realized the only reason MS was in business was their shady business practices and idiot managers who never got fired for buying IBM as DOS and even worse Windows 3.1 was awefull.

But they changed and Linux regressed majorly on the desktop and I grew up and realized they make awesome business and development software. I use what is the best for what needs to be done. I realize that was a very very long time ago and as the way I see it nothing beats Windows for desktop stuff in 2017.

Re:Same old story

[angel'o'sphere]

I would suggest to google.
I used plenty of such systems, but I have no such systems name in my brain.

I have no Exchange/Outlook at hand right no, but thanx for the hint "View | To-Do Bar | Calendar."

Re:Same old story

[david_thornley]

Important, but not necessarily critical. Remember when MS Office was only going to run on Windows 8 mobile devices? They then decided to put it on iOS and Android, so they could make money on Office. I'd say that Office is probably their most critical product right now, followed by some of their enterprise-level stuff, with Windows supporting that. I don't think they much care about preserving their monopoly in consumer space, since they've lost it to iOS and Android.

Re:Same old story

[david_thornley]

Outlook is an horrible unusable mess, no idea how you can think otherwise.

It's basically required at work. I use it for email and scheduling, and it works just fine. It's got its points of irritation, just like every other piece of software I've ever seen, but it does what I need very nicely.

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

I don't think they much care about preserving their monopoly in consumer space, since they've lost it to iOS and Android.

If we look at the numbers on the desktop, Microsoft still absolutely dominates that space. It may be shrinking, but it's still large, and they still own it.

Re:Same old story

[david_thornley]

It used to be that the desktop was consumer space. It no longer is. My mother-in-law has started using her tablet for all sorts of things, neglecting her laptop. (We weren't sure she wanted one, so we got a low-end Samsung on sale. She loves it.)

Android is now the dominant OS in consumer space, followed by Windows and iOS in some order. Microsoft seems to have given up on dominating the mobile space.

Re:Same old story

[drinkypoo]

It used to be that the desktop was consumer space. It no longer is.

For people who don't create content, that's true. For those that do, even just any significant amount of text, the desktop is still the big winner. It's not that you can't do it with anything else, it's just that every other experience is inferior.

Re:Same old story

[david_thornley]

I've seen people use tablets to create content, primarily by typing. Detachable keyboards make it easier. There are programs to draw and create music on iOS and Android, and presumably some people use them.

Besides, the typical use of a desktop is light word processing, games, and web surfing, which can all be done on a phone or tablet (although with different types of games).

Actually the bigger influence is in the userspace

[Casandro]

We now have a huge rush of people conditioned in a Windows world transferring the ideas they learned there to the userspace. Ideas like complex service management, binary log files or the ability for a normal userspace program to disable system shutdown.

The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.

No -- now Microsoft will be worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't looking to give away things for free.

They are doing it for control.

But they have learned it is better to put on a nice face "Do no evil" and such.

Everything Microsoft does is about control from forced Window 10 updates to telemetry to making Office a subscription and beyond.

If Microsoft had adopted this strategy a 15 years ago, they'd be running Linux by now. And they still will.

Keep you eyes are what they don't do. Notice all the Microsoft-made shoe horns required to run these things?

Re: No -- now Microsoft will be worse

[Anonymous Coward]

That describes every large corporation. Thanks for playing.

Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Defend them with actual arguments, I dare you. Do you have any research to share?

No, "THAT'S FUD" is not an actual argument. These guise have a long and distinguished track record of doing exactly this, so we know exactly what will happen, making the fear well-founded and dispelling the other two.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

Defend them with actual arguments, I dare you.

There is no need to provide actual arguments when the original claim didn't make any arguments either. Surely the onus is on the original accuser to prove their EEE meme. The only link that your provided in your post is to an irrelevant gif about racism.

You say that Microsoft has a track record of this, but what has it actually successfully embraced, extended and extinguished? When they are contributing to an open source project (that can be forked at any time by anyone), how can they possibly extinguish the Linux kernel? We all have the access to the code.

If they extend the kernel as part of the main project those extensions are available to all, so it's not like they can only work for Microsoft customers. What evidence is there that any of the existing Linux contributions by Microsoft have any backdoors or patent traps in them, and how would it ever stand up in court if they did try to sue for patents citing the code that they submitted?

Re:Go on then.

[ixidor]

Well for one, Ie all but killed Netscape. There was a big lawsuit over it ..

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

Well for one, Ie all but killed Netscape. There was a big lawsuit over it ..

Competition is not the same as Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. Sure, Microsoft added their own HTML elements, but so did Netscape (like layers). They certainly didn't extend any Netscape code, and the lawsuit was not about EEE.

Netscape pretty much killed itself by becoming monstrously big and slow, then taking way too long to create a new version because they started again from scratch. People bleat on about IE having the advantage because it came with the operating system, but that doesn't stop any browsers from being loaded these days. That excuse is now proven to be false.

Re:Go on then.

[ixidor]

They embraced the idea ... web browsers were new then
Gave it away free
Which essentially killed Netscape, who was charging at the time
hence, Extinguish

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

They embraced the idea ... web browsers were new then Gave it away free

You must hate Linux then. And OpenOffice. And Pages, Numbers and Keynote for the Mac. And... well, you get the idea.

It is not evil to make your own program and include it in your operating system. This sort of thing happens all the time. I remember shareware authors complaining when AmigaDOS added functionality that their little programs offered in an operating system update. Windows didn't originally have TCP networking stack, so a company called Trumpet sold a version. Later, this was added into Windows. Was that unreasonable? Should the operating system not have had built-in access to the Internet?

Is it unreasonable for an operating system to not have a web browser too? You would be hard-pressed to find an OS these days that doesn't have that functionality. You want to blame Microsoft for that, but perhaps you should be thanking them.

And in the case of Netscape, that was even less of an issue considering that the first browser ever written was public domain - so other browsers were free too! Also, Netscape Navigator was free for personal use. Is it that much of a stretch for make a competing browser that extends this free use to all?

Finally, this is all irrelevant because it is absolutely NOT an example of Extend, Embrace and Extinguish. You should have ignored the Extend part of the phrase, assumed that Embrace can mean just making your own version of a product (which it doesn't), and that any Extinguish is still part of it when this even when Netscape has to share the blame for making a bloated mess of a browser that required a lengthy rewrite.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> They embraced the idea ... web browsers were new then Gave it away free

At that time, the world was very different. Mostly here weren't even born, so it's difficult to understand what was the software landscape back then. Netscape was sold at a reasonable price for corporative/web editing uses (and the client was free, IIRC).

What killed Netscape wasn't so much the price, but the fact that IE was included -- in fact, they claimed it was an inseparable part of Windows back then (it wasn't, someone removed the browser from Windows and it kept working). It's like every desktop/notebook being sold with Windows so that nobody really needs to think about installing a new OS (e.g., Linux).

> You must hate Linux then. And OpenOffice. And Pages, Numbers and Keynote for the Mac. And... well, you get the idea.

Sorry, no, I don't get the idea. I don't know about the Mac, but on Linux, Openoffice never prevented the installation of other suites. In fact, my main one is Libreoffice, I have now and then the need for some competing apps like Inkscape, I have used Gnumeric and Abiword (mostly for testing and on older PCs), I have tested proprietary apps like WPS, Softmaker Office and the excellent (IMHO) yEd.

Try that on Windows. Heck, now you are even pushed to open pdfs with Edge -- not what Firefox do, when you're browsing, but for local PDFs, too. Talk about EEE...

> Is it unreasonable for an operating system to not have a web browser too?

What is unreasonable is forcing your products on the user instead of considering her/his preferences. That's why they had to force Microsoft to ask the user for a preferred browser at the first use -- though it seems that is no longer done.

This is like selling TVs with inch-based screen sizes or printers which default to "Letter" size, when everyone and his dog over the world uses centimeters and A4. People end up using weird things instead of easier units.

About Netscape, let's not waste time on that, shall we? Microsoft lost in court, Netscape won but had already folded. It's not like we can say Microsoft was innocent after due process found it to be guilty AFAIK.

Dude, if you were there, stop trolling as you know darn well what they did. And if you're young and wasn't there, do your homework and learn what a cutthroat Microsoft was.

If they're inclined to help Linux now, don't think for a single instant that they care about the Linux user/developer community (the way Linux distros think IMHO). They behave so because they couldn't kill Linux. It's that simple: if you cannot kill them, join them.

And kill them from inside...

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gave it away free

That's exactly what Netscape did! Quoting Wikipedia:

Netscape announced in its first press release (13 October 1994) that it would make Navigator available without charge to all non-commercial users, and beta versions of version 1.0 and 1.1 were indeed freely downloadable in November 1994 and March 1995, with the full version 1.0 available in December 1994. Netscape's initial corporate policy regarding Navigator is interesting, as it claimed that it would make Navigator freely available for non-commercial use in accordance with the notion that Internet software should be distributed for free.[6]

So, Netscape started with an OK product that they gave away for free, then failed to keep innovating it, and you're blaming Microsoft? Grow a brain, please.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

What killed Netscape wasn't so much the price, but the fact that IE was included -- in fact, they claimed it was an inseparable part of Windows back then (it wasn't, someone removed the browser from Windows and it kept working). It's like every desktop/notebook being sold with Windows so that nobody really needs to think about installing a new OS (e.g., Linux).

No. What killed Netscape was that it was a bloated mess. As I said before, browsers like Chrome are having great success even though Windows comes with two browsers these days. As you said later in your post, Microsoft don't ask which browser you want to use initially, and yet it hasn't stopped the decline of their browsers' usage. What more proof do you need? If the alternatives are superior then users will find a way to download and use the software.

As for Internet Explorer being a part of Windows, it was true - despite the fact that you could remove the DLLs. You could also remove the DLLs that handle printing and the OS would still work; at least until the applications tried to print and then it would fail. Developers can rely on the print system being there. Similarly, they could also rely on Internet Explorer being there too, and call its API. When Microsoft made the version of Windows without IE for the European market, some people complained when some software stopped working.

Sorry, no, I don't get the idea. I don't know about the Mac, but on Linux, Openoffice never prevented the installation of other suites

And Microsoft never prevented the installation of any other web browser. But my point was that all those programs mentioned were free offerings that could be said to undermine commercial software's revenue. If you complain that IE was released for free, then why not also that OpenOffice performed the same functions as Microsoft Office? Should we cry for Microsoft? No,because it's simply competition.

Heck, now you are even pushed to open pdfs with Edge -- not what Firefox do, when you're browsing, but for local PDFs, too. Talk about EEE...

It defaults to Edge, but you can change this to whatever software you want. I use Sumatra. What operating system doesn't come with a default PDF reader these days? And if you think that this is EEE, tell me what software has been extended or extinguished? Once again, having competing software is not EEE.

Dude, if you were there, stop trolling as you know darn well what they did. And if you're young and wasn't there, do your homework and learn what a cutthroat Microsoft was.

I was there, and I'm not trolling. I remember installing Internet Explorer before it was ever included with Windows and found it to be a breath of fresh air compared to the bloated Netscape Navigator. Fast forward to Mozilla releasing Firefox and once again it was breath of fresh air from the stagnated IE. So just because I don't agree with your viewpoint doesn't mean that I am trolling. However quotes like this:

if you cannot kill them, join them. And kill them from inside...

...are definitely trolling because you don't provide any evidence that they are doing this nor do you say even how they could kill an open source project.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, wow, you've got a selective memory. There was an actual court case with very high-powered lawyers specifically about this issue and it resulted in findings of fact which you can read here:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/04/11/msjudge.pdf

Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by using their control over Windows distribution. Not sure why you are talking about "these days" because Netscape and Firefox are not the same in any meaningful sense* - Firefox was the first browser to break the Internet Explorer monopoly and that happened well after the Netscape days by making a much better product and by that time there was widespread broadband so it could be distributed easily online. Yes Firefox is declining in the market not for being bloated and slow but that doesn't change the facts that led to Netscape's death in the pre-broadband era.

* Obviously there is code lineage but that is not relevant - Netscape as a company was destroyed due to Microsoft's abuse of monopoly.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

LibreOffice is free and Office has not been killed.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's common knowledge. Nobody is responsible for educating you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Almost every one of those companies is gone. Microsoft couldn't compete, so they bought them out and shut them down. Microsoft was also found guilty of violating antitrust laws multiple times.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had Windows 10 "take over" the default browser from Firefox to Edge four times.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

Lol, wow, you've got a selective memory. There was an actual court case with very high-powered lawyers specifically about this issue and it resulted in findings of fact which you can read here:

I said then as I maintain now that the judgement was wrong. I don't think the judge was technologically savvy enough to understand the quality difference between the two browsers. If Netscape had been superior to Internet Explorer, then people would have still downloaded it. The judge was also not savvy enough to realise that web browsing is something that should be a basic part of an operating system; just like printing and networking.

Not sure why you are talking about "these days" because Netscape and Firefox are not the same in any meaningful sense

I am not just talking about Firefox, but all third party browsers (especially the market-leader, Chrome). Microsoft's browsers continue to decline and are no longer have the largest user base. All this has happened with Microsoft shipping both Internet Explorer and Edge with Windows. It seems that shipping the browser with the OS is not the guarantee of success that the naysayers want us to believe.

Re: Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not evil to make your own program and include it in your operating system.

You need to read up on how MS got to own IE.

TL;DR Version :
They made a deal with a financial share for spy glass, then gave it away, so the share was 0.

How anyone can trust that company beats me.

aRTee

Re: Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

PDFs in stupid Edge are horrible

Web pages are also horrible in Edge. There really is nothing that it can do right.

Re:Go on then.

[CrashNBrn]

Netscape and even the first runs of Mozilla's Phoenix were ungainly beasts clocking in at ~25MB downloads and ~50MB+ installs when Opera 5 with a mail client was ~3.5MB.

I imagine if Opera had of been an American company it wouldn't of even been a contest.

Re: Go on then.

[Monster_user]

The US government also issued a notification to not use Internet Explorer due to security vulnerabilities. https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/c...

Might also have influenced a break in the Microsoft Internet Explorer monopoly.

Re: Go on then.

[Monster_user]

Keeps removing all my non-Outlook.com email accounts fromthe built in email application also.

Re:Go on then.

[KingMotley]

That is a load of crap. Microsoft didn't kill netscape. Netscape killed netscape. Netscape died when they went to release version 4.0 and it was late, and a polished turd that was slow and ate memory. Microsoft released a better product and people switched.

As for Microsoft giving it away for free, well, netscape gave theirs away free FIRST. They included it in mailers, and made deals with ISPs to be given away for free for every person who signed up with the ISP. Microsoft just followed suit really. And well, if giving away a browser for free is so evil, why don't you complain about google, apple, samsung and everyone else who also gives away a free browser?

Re:Go on then.

[KingMotley]

Was going to reply to AC, but your post was spot on.

I too was right there, and I used netscape right up until it started sucking. That was right around the netscape 4.0/IE 5.0 timeframe. Then when IE started sucking (stuck at IE 6.0 forever), I switched back to firefox. Now I use chrome because it's much better than firefox.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

> No. What killed Netscape was that it was a bloated mess.

It was indeed bloated at the beginning and IE was lighter. But time would change that.

Netscape 4.7 was used for years and it ended before Chrome came to be. At one point -- say, 15+ years ago -- , it was almost the only option for browsing on Linux. IE wouldn't run, other browsers were feeble (e.g. Konqueror back then) and Chrome was something Google was only dreaming of.

Netscape 4.7 became very usable after PCs got beefed up (probably around 2004). Meanwhile IE was losing its advantage, becoming slower and slower -- until Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix came...

But all that is a digression. You shouldn't even have mentioned IE being included in Windows in the first place because it was Windows-only. And the whole idea of pushing Netscape onto oblivion was to make Windows mandatory -- because IE would be mandatory.

In light of the present theme, that argument becomes contrary to whatever point you may have about "just competition". Most here were not Netscape stakeholders or married to an ex-Netscape developer; we just get royally p*ssed off with some corporation trying to undermine every other OS by making exclusive a main computer function (browsing the web).

Thus, stop with whatever feeble justification you might have: they wanted to get 90% of the desktop market and they got it -- even if their programs were the lousiest, like Windows.Explorer and that jewel of the software research, Notepad.

> Developers can rely on the print system being there. Similarly, they could also rely on Internet Explorer being there too, and call its API.

If you're left without a print system, you cannot print, OK. You remove IE and suddenly no problem, you can use Netscape. This was done to demonstrate IE is not essential and that Netscape would provide the same functionality.

> When Microsoft made the version of Windows without IE for the European market, some people complained when some software stopped working.

Because said software, by Microsoft or otherwise, relied on IE being always available. On Linux, there's a default editor and I can change it to the one I want, and things won't stop working. Is it too much to expect that a professional OS developer do the same?

Well, maybe it is, because said "professionalism" is not just about doing things right, but about keeping users as brainless slaves.

> If you complain that IE was released for free, then why not also that OpenOffice performed the same functions as Microsoft Office? Should we cry for Microsoft? No,because it's simply competition.

Oh, but it's not. And the problem is not what competitors do. Netscape and Openoffice just competed. Microsoft set traps along the way, in the best "Dick Dastardly" style.

Particularly against Openoffice, they perceived office format standardization as a threat to their business -- which in fact it is -- and proceeded to make sure they had their own standard, which they made sure to be very confusing (e.g. with ten times the page number of the previously approved standard).

And how they ensured that? By flooding ISO with new "members", so that the majority would vote for their runner-up standard. Of course, once the mission was accomplished, the same ISO members vanished and left the organization without quorum...

That is actually preventing competition from happening, IMHO.

>> [about PDF]
> It defaults to Edge, but you can change this to whatever software you want.

No, it's not that easy -- in a corporate setting, one cannot change such things because everyone does not get to have admin rights. And you must have corporate rights to adjust Cleartype! (can you believe that?)

And more, on a single computer on which I do have administrative rights, that "open with..." and "remember this application" didn't work, and Edge kept opening pdfs. That would be circumvented by changing file associations in Windows Explorer. At that point, Windows 10 st

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the deal they cut with Spyglass, whom they purchased IE from. Spyglass got a quarterly fee plus a percentage of revenues from sales of the browser. Once IE 3 got bundled in the OS, Microsoft decided they didn't need to pay any percentage of the revenues any more. They didn't give away the browser for free. It was win-win for Microsoft. They get a major leg up by bundling a new piece of software in a time when operating systems contained a bare bones set of utilities AND get out of an expensive contract. We don't have to guess the outcome. The result was IE specific sites and software. It was a goddamn mess for about 10 years and we are JUST getting away from it.

Don't forget that the company as the start of Windows 95 considered the internet a fad. This is why your ISP shipped you floppies with a browser and dialing programs on them.

First step, Microsoft embraces the internet, specifically the web. They buy a piece of software. Start shipping it for free or bundled with the operating system.

Next, Microsoft starts writing their own HTML specific elements. They develop ActiveX intended only to work with IE. They integrate their desktop into IE (remember Active Channels? See here if you don't: http://toastytech.com/guis/win98start.png )

Finally, utilizing this position of market dominance, IE enjoys 80 - 95% market share and sought to utilize this position to eliminate the competition. Netscape would hobble on in obscurity from 1999 onwards. It would be until 2004 when these rumors of the Netscape code being reborn as something called Firebird (later renamed Firefox) would surface. 5 years is an eternity in high technology. Opera would languish in obscurity due to it's trial period revenue model. It would adopt an ad revenue model 2000. By 2001 Microsoft started blocking any browser that wasn't IE from accessing MSN.com. Future actions would be taken against other browsers in more subtle forms, first as a separate CSS sheet on MSN.com that was malformed (making the site look like crap) and incomplete javascript on Hotmail (making it so users could not empty their junk mail folders). These actions were taken by Microsoft not to ensure maximum compatibility across all platforms, but to make it look like competing products were broken. Extinguish.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

You shouldn't even have mentioned IE being included in Windows in the first place because it was Windows-only. And the whole idea of pushing Netscape onto oblivion was to make Windows mandatory -- because IE would be mandatory.

No, it was for Windows, Mac, OS/2, and Solaris until IE5 (IE3 for OS/2). That kind of ruins half your rant.

Thus, stop with whatever feeble justification you might have: they wanted to get 90% of the desktop market and they got it -- even if their programs were the lousiest, like Windows.Explorer and that jewel of the software research, Notepad.

No, they got over 90% of the desktop because they already that before they included the browser.

If you're left without a print system, you cannot print, OK. You remove IE and suddenly no problem, you can use Netscape. This was done to demonstrate IE is not essential and that Netscape would provide the same functionality.

But developers could embed calls to IE into their software, so those programs would stop working. And I'm not just talking about loading a webpage in the default browser window. IE became part of the user interface of third-party software as an embedded element. That was exactly what people complained about when they did make their version of Windows without IE. Sure, Netscape worked, but who knows what other software would suddenly fail. Hence, so few people bothered to take advantage of the cut-down version of Windows.

Because said software, by Microsoft or otherwise, relied on IE being always available. On Linux, there's a default editor and I can change it to the one I want, and things won't stop working. Is it too much to expect that a professional OS developer do the same?

Great, now remove glibc and see if that causes problems.

Particularly against Openoffice, they perceived office format standardization as a threat to their business -- which in fact it is -- and proceeded to make sure they had their own standard, which they made sure to be very confusing (e.g. with ten times the page number of the previously approved standard).

Do you remember when Microsoft got into trouble because OpenOffice spreadsheet functions didn't work in Excel when they did support the ODF format. That's because they supported the standard and not what OpenOffice actually emitted. It seems like the standards problem is not limited to Microsoft.

No, it's not that easy -- in a corporate setting, one cannot change such things because everyone does not get to have admin rights.

That's funny. I just changed my default PDF reader and I'm logged in as a standard user. If an admin does lock that down as part of a corporate policy, then you can't blame Microsoft.

And you must have corporate rights to adjust Cleartype! (can you believe that?)

Great. You just made me turn off Cleartype. As a standard user. It did actually prompt for the admin password, but I think that's a bug because it doesn't need it.

And more, on a single computer on which I do have administrative rights, that "open with..." and "remember this application" didn't work, and Edge kept opening pdfs.

Great. You just made me run Edge. Twice, just to test that it was really the default application for PDFs. Now I changed it back and it worked fine. Did you try this in an early version of Windows 10?

As you can see, I have a very negative opinion about Microsoft. But some people are choosing to give them a new opportunity. Let's hope they're right and I'm just being a grumpy old man.

I can appreciate that. I hate Windows 10 with a passion, and am hugely disappointed with the direction Microsoft have taken Windows since Win7. I like C# and PowerShell, and yet I can't bring myself to installing them on Linux because I don't trust Microsoft to not spy on

Re:Go on then.

[Tough Love]

What killed Netscape was that it was a bloated mess.

It is a matter of public record that Netscape was killed by Microsoft's illegal trust-making activities, for which it was found guilty and paid billions of dollars in fines. Enough with the revisionism.

Re:Go on then.

[Tough Love]

I said then as I maintain now that the judgement was wrong.

And why should anyone care what a self-appointed armchair expert thinks, long after the question was definitely settled?

Re:Go on then.

[Tough Love]

Microsoft didn't kill netscape. Netscape killed netscape. Netscape died when they went to release version 4.0 and it was late, and a polished turd that was slow and ate memory...

After Microsoft had already "cut off [Netscape's] air supply", which came out at trial. Please take your revisionism elsewhere.

Re:Go on then.

[KingMotley]

Lol. I don't have to read a trial, or perform any "revisionism". I was there and lived it. The fact that netscape killed themselves was always the case, and it was clear back then that was the case.

Don't confuse lawyer antics and court "findings" as facts. They aren't the same thing. Courts often get things wrong, and the quotes you pulled aren't about what happened, but taken from one idiot inside a company of over 100,000. I'd love you find any group of 100,000 people that doesn't include at least a few idiots in it.

Did Microsoft want to "win" the browser wars? Sure.
Did they make all kinds of plans to do so? Sure. And lots of people discussed lots of things that never happened, never got approved, and had nothing to do with the demise of netscape.
Was it any of those plans that actually killed off Netscape? Nope. As I said, I was there. It wasn't hard to download another browser, and it definitely wasn't hard to update the browser I was already using, but the new version just sucked and Microsoft offered a better alternative. And I'm not an IE fan. Haven't used it (for other than comparability testing) in a very very long time (8-9 years maybe?)

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

It is a matter of public record that Netscape was killed by Microsoft's illegal trust-making activities, for which it was found guilty and paid billions of dollars in fines. Enough with the revisionism.

If that was the real reason, then Chrome doesn't stand a chance against Internet Explorer and Edge. Oh wait, Chrome's market share continues to rise. It turns out that despite what the lawyers argue, being shipped with an operating system is not actually a guarantee of dominance. And when did Internet Explorer's market share start to drop? When Mozilla released a viable alternative that wasn't a bloated mess.

So it is less revisionism, and more history proving that the original argument was incorrect. To continue to claim that the original court judgement is the only one that counts is like deferring to an ancient scholar who proved that the Sun rotated around the Earth despite all the evidence since then that shows that the proof was wrong.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

And why should anyone care what a self-appointed armchair expert thinks, long after the question was definitely settled?

If that's the case, why did you bother to reply? Apparently you must care to some degree.

Re:Go on then.

[Tough Love]

If that was the real reason, then Chrome doesn't stand a chance against Internet Explorer and Edge.

Rubbish. Google pushed Chrome into the market using tactics surprisingly similar to Microsoft's of old, and heavily subsidizes development using profits diverted from its search monopoly. And _please_ don't now act disingenuous, like you do not understand the definition of monopoly.

Re: Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Search for Halloween documents and ms. Tip of the iceberg.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

That doesn't explain why Internet Explorer's market share started its steady decline the moment that Mozilla came out with a decent alternative browser. It didn't require any monopoly tactics, just a superior product.

Re: Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

Irrelevant. Those documents are from twenty years ago under different leadership. Microsoft's attitude to open source software today is fundamentally different than it was two decades ago.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

"wouldn't of"

LOL

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly have no idea of the difference between a monopolistic organization abusing its power, and genuine competition.

Re:Go on then.

[Gadget_Guy]

That's an extremely low-effort response, especially when I have given a detailed explanation for my position.

Re:Go on then.

[HermMunster]

They added their own by submitting their proposed changes to the standards organization. Microsoft did the same thing. The standards organization agreed on both. However, Microsoft then pushed their browser on the desktop and made it costly to those OEMs that wanted to put something other than Microsoft's products on the computer by default. That's what they got in trouble for.

A better example of EEE is Java, where Microsoft embraced java by signing a license that prohibited platform specific extensions, and then implemented platform specific extensions which had the impact of having developers write for it instead of writing for the platform agnostic version. That's embrace, extend, extinguish.

Microsoft's embrace will follow with extend and then finally they'll extinguish the official Linux as most corporations accepting Linux will consider it a subset of Windows.

Re: Go on then.

[PCM2]

Web pages are also horrible in Edge. There really is nothing that it can do right.

I've never used Edge myself. But early on when Microsoft was developing Edge as the replacement for IE, all I kept hearing was how Edge beat all the other browsers on HTML5/CSS conformance tests, how it had the fastest JavaScript engine, etc. And yet everyone who's used it seems to say it's full of bugs, is incompatible with important sites, and it generally sucks. Where's the disconnect here? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Go on then.

[Tough Love]

Mozilla won fair and square, unlike Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> You shouldn't even have mentioned IE being included in Windows in the first place because it was Windows-only. And the whole idea of pushing Netscape onto oblivion was to make Windows mandatory -- because IE would be mandatory.

> No, it was for Windows, Mac, OS/2, and Solaris until IE5 (IE3 for OS/2). That kind of ruins half your rant.

At the time I posted I remembered that some Microsoft software was indeed ported to Mac OS (9, for instance). Solaris does not count, because it never was meant to be a massively used desktop OS; likewise, OS/2 never took off. So I didn't consider them.

But let's see whether your position stands with a simple test:

I heard there's now MS SQL Server for Linux. Libreoffice, too, is available for Windows.

I'm sure Microsoft market domination will only achieve a more solid lead if they make available their software on other OSes. Thus, the same way we can run Libreoffice on Windows, please tell me how can I run Microsoft Office on Linux. And their other software, too, like Internet Explorer 11 (which I need for work purposes).

I'd rather have their software ported by Microsoft themselves, to avoid middlemen. It must be locally (not Office 365, please) and official (not executing it by a non-emulator software like Wine).

If you point out that such comparison is impossible, because MS Office is paid while Libreoffice is gratis, OK, just show me a paid alternative. I'm not against paying de per se. But it must be legal, not something the friend of your cousin once managed to do on an old computer 10 years ago. I wanna go now and download the software -- from Microsoft, naturally.

Of course, free offers on Windows must also be free for other OSes -- anything "different" would play into our anti-MS arguments, isn't it? So, Edge, free, utilities (including Notepad), free... I'm really at loss here, because the Windows environment really hasn't as much tools as Linux (I'd really like to have GNU coreutils on Windows, but that is forbidden at work, it seems).

> Do you remember when Microsoft got into trouble because OpenOffice spreadsheet functions didn't work in Excel when they did support the ODF format.

Nope, I use Libreoffice at home which correctly supports all Openoffice functions -- and Excel at work.

> That's because they supported the standard and not what OpenOffice actually emitted. It seems like the standards problem is not limited to Microsoft.

But Microsoft can look at Openoffice/Libreoffice source code and learn what is need for functions to work. Not so for the Openoffice guys, because Office source code is not available.

The easiest way would be helping the Open/Libreoffice guys to correctly save to xlsx, xlsm, xlsb, xls and the plethora of Excel formats and still consolidate Excel's market domination. Will Microsoft do that? I don't think so... :)

> I like C# and PowerShell, and yet I can't bring myself to installing them on Linux because I don't trust Microsoft to not spy on me.

It seems you're healthy regarding survival instincts. Personally, I'd say times are changing. Choosing Mr. Nadella sent a powerful sign and the many options working from the cloud on Linux also carry a strong meaning. Maybe they learned a little, but as others point out it's hard to teach new tricks to an old dog.

And, unfortunately for them, they cannot really make a strong enough grip on corporations to force them keep using their OS. One by one businesses learn about web clients and how Windows is no longer needed. I bet that right now Microsoft is trying to find a new nature -- to become more like Oracle or Google. Maybe they can pull it, though I cannot foresee it at this moment.

Their main enemy is their past.

Re:Go on then.

[david_thornley]

IE 5 for the Macintosh was widely considered the best browsing environment of its time. IE 6 was also a good browser when introduced.

Then IE6 languished for years and years, because it didn't have serious competition and people were going to use it anyway, right? So why spend any money improving it?

And so Microsoft lost round 2 of the browsing wars, and has never recovered.

Re:Go on then.

[david_thornley]

But developers could embed calls to IE into their software, so those programs would stop working.

Microsoft put a HTML display engine into their OS and made IE.exe a small program that handled HTTP and handed all the display and Javascript off to the system library. Their IE-less OS, I believe, removed the library as well as the application.

Re:Go on then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must hate Linux then. And OpenOffice. And Pages, Numbers and Keynote for the Mac. And... well, you get the idea.

Fail. Playing stupid only makes you look stupid. Read the judge's ruling some time. There's no reason for people here to teach you history you clearly don't want to learn.

Copyright Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if companies contribute code to Linux under GPL, they are still the lawful copyright holders. As such, by contributing to the kernel, to the point where your company', or a small group of companies', code dominate the open source product then, at the same time, you are also creating a closed source version of it.

So, pretty risky for Linux.

Re: Copyright Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't create a closed source version of Linux. They could revoke the GPL on it, though, because Linux uses version 2 rather than 3. However, that risk exists with code contributed by anyone else, too. Funny that you trust a patent troll like IBM, but won't trust Microsoft.

Re: Copyright Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

They can revoke the GPL on future code only and only on code they have written. The previous contributions will still be GPL and can be forked accordingly.

Re: Copyright Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM might be a bully, but MS is a certified mass murderer. IBM has fought, rather hard at that, for Linux. Microsoft has done nothing but spreading bullshit propaganda and bankrolled nonsense lawsuits in attempt to stop it.

Poor Microsoft. Gee, I wonder why won't anyone trust them?

Re:Copyright Issues

[nomadic]

Who cares if there's a closed source version of it? That doesn't affect the functionality of what's been contributed to the open source version already.

MS Office

[pablo_max]

It is hard to imagine a time where MS is offering Office for Linux. For me, and no doubt plenty of others, this is the reason I do not use Linux as a primary OS. For my work Office is required. Not something which "sort of" works with office documents either. Part of my work includes making vba macros for several of our sites, all of which are on office 16. This of course works only with excel and nothing else.
A few years ago, gaming was also the reason I still used Windows. I do still game from time to time, but not enough that I really care if I have it or not.
So, I do hope that office gets a release for linux some day. Sure, a few years ago it was always a pain to use linux as you needed to love to tinker with the OS. I hate wasting my time to tinker with the OS these days, but I have heard that linux more or less just works now. So...let's see.

Re:MS Office

[dwywit]

Well, Office for Mac works.....sort of. I'm sure they'll get the bugs and interoperability worked out Real Soon Now.

Re:MS Office

[thegarbz]

It is hard to imagine a time where MS is offering Office for Linux.

I have no problem opening up Office 365 on Linux. Before you say it's not "Office" remember that if you search Microsoft Office on any search engine or go to Office.com or go to the Microsoft store the first thing you will be greeted with is Office 365.

To say they aren't pushing a desktop version would be disingenuous, they are actively hiding it. So their "premier" Office product most definitely runs on Linux.

Re: MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they do that when the whole market is moving towards cloud based web interfaces ? Just use office 365 on any OS that can run a recent web browser. Microsoft has already realized that the desktop is not that relevant anymore. It could be Windows, but also Linux or Android or IOS. Just open your browser and use their service.

Re:MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hard to imagine a time where MS is offering Office for Linux.

I have no problem opening up Office 365 on Linux. Before you say it's not "Office" remember that if you search Microsoft Office on any search engine or go to Office.com or go to the Microsoft store the first thing you will be greeted with is Office 365.

To say they aren't pushing a desktop version would be disingenuous, they are actively hiding it. So their "premier" Office product most definitely runs on Linux.

Does a desktop version even matter now? I think that really is the downfall of Microsoft, in that you can run almost anything on your computer and access everything you need to run your life or your business without coming into contact with Microsoft or it's products.

Yes, I recognize that some businesses have tied themselves to Microsoft, but that isn't the point. The point is that you don't need to.

Re: MS Office

[Entrope]

No, Microsoft's "premier" office product runs on their servers. Whether those servers run Linux is irrelevant: the important factor is that the core logic does not run on the end user's computer. If you're not sending whatever data Microsoft wants to Microsoft, you can't use their "premier" office product.

Re:MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Microsoft can fallow their own standard outside the iso ooxml strict standard

Re:MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you must misunderstand what office 365 is.... Office 365 is NOT the web app versions of office...

Office 365 is the desktop version of Office, it's just installed in what use to be called click to run mode, and is constantly updated via the net...

Re: MS Office

[thegarbz]

No, Microsoft's "premier" office product runs on their servers.

A distinction that no end user cares about save for a few people.

Re:MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Does VBA work on Office 365? How do you automate things on Office 365?

Re: MS Office

[Anonymous Coward]

From an engineering perspective this is another layer of the same problem, not a reason not to worry about it.

Your argument reads literally as 'all these other people aren't aware of how they're potentially vulnerable, therefore it's not a problem'. That's not a strategy, it's an excuse to not have security protocols.

You might argue further that most people don't need it, but you'd be projecting your own usecase there. Many environments which apparently aren't yours do actually need to protect the stuff their people are working on.

Re:MS Office

[shutdown -p now]

It's hard to imagine this happening until Linux desktop becomes a viable target for commercial software - meaning it has more than 2% of desktop market share, for starters.

If you look at product that Microsoft ported to Linux so far, it's all either server-side stuff (e.g. SQL Server), or developer-centric stuff (e.g. Visual Studio Code). That makes sense, insofar as Linux dominates the server market, and is a popular platform for developers, especially for web apps and services.

But if you were a product manager in the Office org, can you think of a business plan to come up with, justifying expenses to port Office to some stack that can target Linux, on the basis of some expected return on investment?

IBM, meanwhile

[dwywit]

has been pushing development of linux partitions on its mid-range and mainframe devices for years.

A bit unlikely, but smart - run your favourite OS as one or more partitions on this high-spec hardware. They still rule the market for high-uptime hardware.... with an appropriate price tag, of course.

Re: No, it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

And rightfully so, as Microsoft hasn't changed a bit but must "play nice" as they are feeling the pressure. As soon as Office comes to Linux, I'll evaluate again. Not holding my breath in the meantime.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it won't.

Think Peloton

[John Allsup]

Think of a peloton in the Tour de France. Think of the bizarre cathedral on magic wheels we now have rolling along. If Microsoft want to take a turn pulling the magic penguin train along, we should embrace them, welcome them in, be friends and comrades in the game of MakeTheBloodyMachineWork. We have nothing to fear from them, the can embrace us, and extend us all they like. They will never extinguish the flame of our inner penguin.

Re: Think Peloton

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for demonstrating that open source is a nutjob religion. Inner penguin? LOL!

Re: Think Peloton

[John Allsup]

If you think a /. comment, made in jest, where I was so high on coffee that I missed the bloody y key with my right pointy finger... that coffee'd up...

If you think that demonstrates _anything_ about the Open Source community, of which I am not even a part, being a former Free Software nutter, and a kind of PoohBear programmer who lives the philosophy that if your program takes more than 1000 lines, you're using the wrong language... (And generally I start to get worried when I've used more than 10 lines for a program my intuition tells me should require fewer...)

If you think my /. comments demonstrate anything more than the fact that I felt like pressing the keys I did in the order I did and then hitting the Submit button...

Then you have a _lot_ to learn about reasoning from empirical evidence, and the havoc that can be wreaked by #NumptyDumptySchoolboy over-generalisations. I would advice you to learn that 'lot', soon, and thoroughly.

#Moo!

Re: Think Peloton

[John Allsup]

When it comes to Open Source, I'm of the mind that it would be less effort to write a better solution to the problem I face, than to try and solve the makes-NP-hard-look-like-a-teddy-bears-tea-party-Hard problem of figuring out how to explain OpenSource and FreeSoftware to somebody who doesn't already get it. Gates didn't get it. Ballmer didn't get it. Nadella seems to get it.

Re: Think Peloton

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLOLOL, continuing to expose yourself for the nutjob that you are. Do you realize just how much of a raving lunatic you sound like?

Re: Think Peloton

[John Allsup]

Sometimes I do wonder if I am the only regular 3-digit Slashdotter left. My Wacom stylus scribbled this thought the other minute: http://allsup.co/HowManyRegula...

Re:Think Peloton

[Anonymous Coward]

"They will never extinguish the flame of our inner penguin."

Because that's already been done by Redhat.

But as a side note, what a lot of paid shills there seem to be in this thread, reminds me of the peak push for systemd. Interesting how you can smell the presence of a marketing budget.

Re: Think Peloton

[CustomSolvers2]

Nadella seems to get it.

I don't think that he gets it either. Microsoft seems to see open source as a secondary promotional source, as a way to look like a modern, adaptable and trendy company. Actually, it seems that most of online efforts of big companies are being focused on marketing, rather than on technical aspects. They are more worried about attracting a huge number of people and getting immediate benefits than about developing proper software. Appearances transmitted in the most childish ways (stars, upvotes, likes, shares, etc.) seem now much more important than objective correctness, reliability and long-term expectations.

I am too young and have been seriously involved in programming just during the last 10 years, but I think that this isn't how the open source world used to be. Back in the day, it seems that there were lots of truly knowledgeable people, really interested in learning, sharing, growing, etc. Internet should have helped overcome the geographical restrictions of those initial efforts, but ignorance and short-sightedness seemed to have temporarily won that war.

Re:Think Peloton

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an authentic nutjob I wear my Penguine suit on the outside!

I have no idea what a peloton is, and Chrome has hijacked my searches, so I will find out later.

I think it is time we got all our Penguins in a a line. We are well on the way - why don't we Embrace, Extend and Extinguish Microsoft? We have the servers in our greasy mitts - why not grab the shrinking desktop market? All we need to do is stop adding features, and fix the damn bugs - like the BSD people do. It can't be that hard - there are not many BSD people and they seem to manage.

Re: Think Peloton

[Isaac-Lew]

I'm here, but I don't post (or even read articles) on a regular basis.

I believe most of us low-digit account holders got busy with with life (work, family, etc.) and don't have the time or energy for Slashdot.

The decline of the site has probably played a part as well.

Re: Think Peloton

[wallsg]

I'm not three-digit, but I remember when my number was considered high.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Gadget_Guy]

The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.

Which developers behind those projects have come from the Windows world?

C: A Replacement for C++

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Gentlemen,

I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging languages out there!

C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming. In this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community) a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader, are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation of these "glasses".

Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++ for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the oldest languages in existance, pre-dating even assembly! It was created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would "borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!) Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language. When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy it was. The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C, but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this language.

Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately its starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be retired as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've become aquainted with another language that's quite recently been developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This new language is called C.

Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its simpler nature by striping off the klunky double-pluses.) Its biggest strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called structs. Vaguely similiar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with anachronisms like inheiritance, namespaces and the whole private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and rapidly developing his application.

While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stablity rivalling that of C++.

I'm hoping to see C adopted as the de facto standard of programming. Based on what I've learned of this language, the future seems very bright indeed for C! Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll even see an operating system coded in this langauage.

Thank you for your time. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Re:C: A Replacement for C++

[CustomSolvers2]

Very funny.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Casandro]

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I mean people who grew up with Windows, before they started to program. People who have experienced all the glossy surface of Windows, but never the problems of those design decisions.

They now think that the mind-set behind the design of Windows is great and that the problems are just in the implementation... and that they, obviously, can do it much better.

At the same time, they dismiss the UNIX philosophy as outdated.

btc languishers duped by own delusions?

[Anonymous Coward]

other than a small crowd of early bittors? please raise your mouses.. or just smile & wave thanks..now us small spudians think 1 btc should = +-1$ again? plus the huge drive by the last gasper corepirate nazi wmd on credit cabalists to lambaste anything that moves... if we cannot eat it or trade it for antibiotics what use is it? in the moms we trust.. our nearest real identifiable connection to creation & it shows.. ms. monkey has been right all along.. read the teepeeleaks etchings..

*MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.

I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 4.12.8 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 10 boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.

I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 7.2 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 10 on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win10 machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.

Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.

As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 7/8.1/10 are your only choices.

thank you.

Re:*MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Got your brown envelope from redmond yet?
Two posts (so far) that are just a joke.
The real world knows only to well that Microsoft is only in it for the money and screw the users.
So now that your trolling has been paid off why don't you go back to Mommy's basement and carry on playing shootemup games on your X-Box?

I moved a complete industrial complex from Windows to Linux because of your masters continual screwups that were costing us millions in lost production. Since then (3+ years ago) not one day of production has been lost.
Fake News? you will probably think so but our whole team sleep a lot easier at night knowing that there are no MS systems anywhere near the production lines. We saved a shed load of $$$ in licensing as well.

Re: *MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

on my honor, I'll do my duty, to Microsoft and my country

Re: *MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro. Claiming 100% uptime for an entire datacenter for 3 years straight.

Re: *MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anne Thwacks]

Depends on what you mean by 100% uptime. I have achieved 100% client availability. Some machines go down, but that does not need to take down customer availability - if you can get Carp to work, and use reliable kit.

I have had Sun kit run 3 years non-stop. Generally, this would not happen because it does not need to - you build a new machine and migrate tasks before upgrading the old one. If you have a "whole data centre" to play with, its not difficult. Even if your "whole data centre" is a 21U rack, if you have the right kit, its not hard.

The essential thing is to avoid MS.

Re: *MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with a whole datacentre at your command, there are still things that will bite you. Problems with power distribution where you lose one feed and the other one doesn't kick in or goes wrong, or you lose both (which has happened, even with diverse feeds to different substations) and the backup power doesn't kick in like it's supposed to, or worse that happens during routine testing. Or have a core router or switch go crazy and pump out crap onto your network, preventing failover and flooding your network. Or your upstreams get hit with a 700Gbps DDOS, or someone else advertises your AS.

There's always plenty that can go wrong that no amount of planning or redundancy can eliminate entirely. The best you can do is plan for failure and have procedures in place to deal with it quickly and effectively.

Re:*MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That post was complete horseshit from the first letter to the last.

Re: *MY* Experience with the Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

He said industrial complex not datacenter, he said not one day of production lost. Learn to read

How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I've always used Windowz and I consider myself an exceptional Visual Basic programmer, so I know computers pretty good. In fact I got an A- in my programming class last term. But I'm a little wary of how much power Microsoft has in the computer field. Many of my friends use RedHat and I've recently installed it on my machine at home. Although I haven't had as much chance to play with it as I'd like, I've been greatly impressed.

This weekend I gave some thoughts to the things that are wrong with Linux. I hope no one minds having some flaws pointed out. I'd like to help make RedHat stronger so it can conquer MS. Hopefully RedHat will hear this (crossing fingers) and address these. I think with a little effort, RedHat's Linux can defeat Microsoft's Windows! :)

To begin with, there are too many different flavors of RedHat. Browsing a list on Amazon, I saw they made variants under the codenames of Ubuntu, Debian and Slackware, just to name a few. I know that I'm very new to RedHat so maybe this is obvious but it seems like RedHat should just sell a few different flavors of its operating system. Perhaps one for the desktop and one for a server? Could someone explain why RedHat produces dozens of different versions of Linux?

Secondly did you know that anyone can view the source code to Linux! I think that RedHat shouldn't make its code available. After all, what keeps Microsoft from stealing RedHat's ideas and putting it into Windows? My friend says that FreeBSD stole the TCP/IP stack from DOS a long time ago and Microsoft is always looking for revenge for that. Plus it seems to me like RedHat is just giving away its ideas for free. And what keeps hackers or terrorists from tampering with the code and putting a virus in every computer?

On a related note, why doesn't RedHat write Linux in assembly? My friend says that's what Microsoft does for Windows, and that's why Windows is faster and more stable than Linux.

Next RedHat definitely should kill -9 (ha, ha!) the command line. Microsoft finally gave up DOS when Windows 2000 came out. I'm suprised that RedHat hasn't migrated away from...whatever its version of DOS is called (Bash, I think?) But maybe this is planned for a future release?

Finally Linux needs games! RedHat will never be successful in the home without games. They should also tell M$ to release a version of Office for Linux too. And Edge!

Have a nice day! Go Linux!!

Re:How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Anonymous Coward]

I see my assessment was correct, even if I managed to misjudge the depths of stupidity. But I guess there was little else for you to do, other than proving me correct.

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Anonymous Coward]

is this sarcasm?

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Anonymous Coward]

He couldn't come up with anything to reply with, so he decided to shit in his own pants to belittle himself.

Re:How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[rgbatduke]

I'm glad you have started to use Red Hat, although Fedora and Debian (at least) are free-er alternatives. You can learn to use a wide range of programming languages in a fully professional environment in Linux, and can do things like read source for everything from simple stuff to the operating system itself as you learn C (the "real programmer" language, as in the one people use to write operating systems and maybe 80 to 90% of all the code contributed to Linux and the other free operating systems).

However, you are mistaken (IMO) in your wish to see RH abandon the command line. And you are mistaken in your belief that Microsoft has abandoned the command line. Neither of these are correct. You can bring up a command line in Windows, for the excellent reason that in many circumstances a command line interface is the only way to accomplish things that lie outside of the range of functions supported by ANY GUI interface to a controlled system. It also provides an end run around many of the catch-22 situations you can find yourself in with GUI interfaces -- if the GUI interface itself has bugs or breaks, you can find yourself in a situation where you can't use the interface to fix the bugs or update the broken software and effectively have to reinstall the entire OS to regain control. With a CLI console, you can just login and fix it. CLI interfaces work as long as the kernel and a VERY minimal set of support works, which is why most operating systems have a primitive run level where this is pretty much all that works. Even Microsoft's, although in its "safe mode" you often can't fix what is wrong.

However, there is another reason to use CLIs. They are much, much, much... much more powerful than GUIs for doing repetitive tasks efficiently and for doing almost ANYTHING quickly. An expert in Linux can go through an entire directory tree and patch every file inside to replace the word "frog" with the word "toad" with a single command line command -- probably two or three different ways using one of several tools that will do the job. With a GUI, you will die of old age before you finish even that simple a task in a large filesystem. Copying or moving files that match certain criteria, changing things involving regular expressions, working from one machine on a network of thirty machines to manage them or fix them -- CLI all the way.

CLIs are lightweight -- the Microsoft approach is to provide you with an entire virtual Windows interface to a remote machine simply because they assume that you can't do anything on the remote machine except through the GUI so they have to provide the whole damn thing in a virtual mode for you to make a single tiny change to a single file on the remote system. One system at a time, by hand.

Finally, CLIs are, to put it bluntly, faster for almost any task you EVER try to perform other than just editing text, assuming that you can type faster than 1 character per second or something absurd like that. Back in the days that Apple Macintoshi had pretty much "only" a GUI to the OS back end just as you describe, and when ALL applications were ONLY GUI apps -- a state of affairs that Apple abandoned, for good reason, when they transformed iOS into Unix -- there was a very apropos adage:

One can learn to use a Macintosh in a day, and then pay for that knowledge for the rest of your life.

This is the literal truth. Anybody could use a Mac, but they had to go through the GUI to (as illustrated above) move files, change things, do even simple stuff. Mousing is intuitive but SO SLOW! Even text editors that "only" let you move the cursor or select text or change things with the mouse are slow, slow, slow. The same thing is true about Android -- my biggest gripe with it is that it DOESN'T have a simple console interface built in to the OS any more (although one can install console-ish interfaces if one works at it or needs to root the system so you can actually do things with it). Ditto, only worse, for iphones and tablets. Consequently there is only on

Re:How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure byte-boi bullshit. Excepting neckbeards ... nobody does find & replace or any of the Busker-toad tasks ... with a std. 24-G RAM in a 2-T / 3.7 Gig sys nobody cares about light-weight or speed .... Linux runs games slow and top-tit apps not-at-all. Yep, M$ be sha'kn in dem buutz !

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Monster_user]

Eh, ignore the troll.

RedHat is $365 a year for security updates and access to the package repository. Which on *nix is essential. Not sure what the difference is between the Workstation and server edition is, given the workstation edition is only $49 a year, it is comparable to Windows Pro.

Still, when all of the competition is free, why pay a subscription?

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[rgbatduke]

Eh, Fedora is free. Debian is free. Scientific Linux is free. Centos is free. And if you knew anything at all about Linux you wouldn't engage in open FUD like: "RedHat is $365 a year for security updates and access to the package repository. Which on *nix is essential." Centos is debranded RH. Fedora actually leads RH and trades a bit of stability for being closer to the cutting edge of development and available software (much like Debian). All of these give you access to the package repository. All of them get "security updates" whatever the hell that means for most of the flavors of linux, which typically get updates of all sorts on a nightly basis with "security" updates rolled transparently into all the rest.

None of them IMO having used both from IBM's PC-DOS through Windows 10 on the Microsoft side and from SLS and Slackware through to the present on the linux side (where I am typing this on Fedora 26 FWIW) are "comparable to Windows Pro". Nor is there any essential difference between workstation and server "editions" of Linux AFAIK -- they differ by at most the selection of packages out of the common repositories and how one configures them -- workstation leaves out most of the servers and daemons and a lot of the management tools, server includes them and focuses less on window managers and user applications, but one can turn a workstation into a server with a handful of dnf/yum/apt commands plus the necessary configuration and vice versa.

You also miss the point I was making to the person I was answering -- in case your "troll" comment was directed upstream somewhere. If you are learning to code and manage systems on a personal basis, linux isn't just free (assuming one is smart enough not to pay RH for a subscription when Centos is the exact same thing and where ANY of them can do "workstation" or "server" or any mix in between), it is an excellent learning platform because of its nearly total support for the most important coding languages, its superior IDE and debugging and programming tools, the fact that you can read the source of anything that interests you and learn from that (more or less impossible on Microsoft based systems), and yeah, the fact that it encourages the use of a CLI to learn what is actually happening and what is doing what from the OS itself up to userspace, with very nearly total control over everything in between, IF you get past using the GUI tools it provides for people that are sadly nearly illiterate about what the OS is actually doing so that the best they can do is pick from a list of menu entries that might or might not do what they would like to try to do.

As a single example, any Linux user can, if they wish, grab the kernel source and set it up to build. They can then, if they wish, configure a custom kernel, or write their own kernel driver, or tweak an existing driver. No, not everybody wants to do this, and most people never need to do this, but the ones who do have complete access. The ones who need to LEARN to do so have complete access. Now, which version of Windows do you need to buy, as a student, to get access to the operating system sources so that you can learn to actually hack the OS? Which version do you need to buy, as a systems manager, to get access at a level that would let you hack in new device drivers needed by your company or leave out the mountains of crap they put in because of its integration with GUI tools required to manage it?

When I teach people to code, one of the first things I ask them to do is install at least a Linux VM on whatever their favorite platform is (and to consider installing linux as a primary operating system and put WINDOWS inside a VM under Linux, where one can always boot the VM if there is something you really have to do under Windows). It is also a very good way to learn networking and how to manage and administer multiuser systems. Finally, yeah, compare batch jobs under Windows to shell scripts under Linux. O.M.G.

The cost is indeed an important factor, but the cost one should be comparing is "no cost at all" to all of the costs needed to install Windows Pro and a tiny fraction of the tools one gets for free with any of the major linux distributions.

Re:How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[rgbatduke]

I missed this one in my previous reply to you:

To begin with, there are too many different flavors of RedHat. Browsing a list on Amazon, I saw they made variants under the codenames of Ubuntu, Debian and Slackware, just to name a few. I know that I'm very new to RedHat so maybe this is obvious but it seems like RedHat should just sell a few different flavors of its operating system. Perhaps one for the desktop and one for a server? Could someone explain why RedHat produces dozens of different versions of Linux?

Seriously? Dude, these aren't different flavors of Red Had Linux. Look, you need to read both:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

to get some idea what you are talking about. Debian and Slackware are (for example) completely unrelated to Red Hat Linux. Slackware is very old, and used one of the original "packaging" systems -- installing everything from tar.gz images that slotted into a filesystem tree with some pre and post install scripting included. The Debian folks invented one of the original package management systems that was smarter than this (called "apt"). The purpose of apt was to allow a user to install packages from a common repository without entering what is called "dependency hell" - different versions of different programs built on different releases of common systems libraries so installing package B would break package A in unpredictable ways. Windows has a similar problem with "DLL (dynamic link library) hell -- you may have noticed lots of things like games have to install DLLs so that they have precisely the right version to work even if some other application on Windows has basically the same DLL installed (but maybe a different version). This is a nontrivial problem as some of the features a program uses go all the way into the operating systems itself as well as the many shared libraries that the system relies on in order to function. It doesn't have a really satisfactory solution even today, but apt is one that works pretty well. Ubuntu is arguably a variant of Debian that plays a bit better with proprietary tools -- Debian itself is religiously open source. Red Hat got its start by introducing the "Red Hat Package Manager" -- hence "RPM" -- packaging system. This too tried to avoid dependency hell, but sadly through most of the 90's it just didn't work very well -- it was way too easy to break and Red Hat installation because of package inconsistencies with stuff one "had" to have.

About that time we had left off using slackware for the Duke Physics department network and moved to Red Hat because SOME package management and automation was better than none. We had also just hired a young guy named Seth Vidal to be our primary systems administrator. He was a Very Smart Guy (tm) and started to look over package management alternatives that used RPMs but handled dependency hell better. He discovered Yellowdog Linux, which was Linux for the current generation of Apple hardware, and which actually layered a toplevel tool that maintained a local database on top of RPM itself to help track dependencies and block actions that would lead to an inconsistent installation while also automating updates. He (in the best of open source traditions) hacked Yellowdog Updater into "Yellowdog Updater, Modified" or "yum". Yum proved enormously popular and was ultimately adopted by Red Hat as it was the piece that made Red Hat really usable and maintainable on top of their otherwise adequate packaging specification.

Seth went to work for Red Hat after he left Duke and worked there until he was killed while riding his bike in Durham a few years ago. Since his death, yum has been taken over by a slightly different team and renamed "dnf", but dnf AFAICT maintains pretty much exactly the same functionality as yum while sadly not paying homage to the yellowdog folk

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[Monster_user]

The "troll" comment was indeed directed upstream. I was telling you to ignore the "troll" you responded to originally.

Red Hat being $300+ annually isn't FUD. Its fact, despite sister distributions providing access to an equivalent repository. In fact that was the point I was making. CentOS and Fedora may be part of the Red Hat family, but they are not Red Hat. Just like Mint is not Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is not Debian.

Re: How Linux Can Defeat Micro$oft

[rgbatduke]

Fair enough, and I apologize if I bristled a bit. Context is hard to see in nested replies:-)

I didn't think the kid I was replying to was trolling, and I didn't really care about the further upstream stuff. I was mostly trying to redirect him to ways he could learn enough to not make horrendous mistakes in his comment -- Debian part of Red Hat, jeeze. I'd think a real troll could manage to do better than that...:-)

Microsoft's strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's strategy has always been, embrace and extend. Now they are taking it to the Linux kernel

Re: Microsoft's strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, no.

Re:Microsoft's strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe that when they get Linus on their payroll. The next day there will be the start of a mass migration to FreeBSD.

Re: Microsoft's strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't systemd already cause that? From what I've seen given a representative sample of Slashdot all that's left now are the so called "alt-right" members (white nationalists, mysoginists and neonazis, to be more accurate), and they're not capable of constructing coherent thoughts, let alone code anything worthwhile.

Re:No, it won't

[viperidaenz]

you know, apart from the hundred of thousands of lines of code Microsoft has already put in the Linux kernel.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Gadget_Guy]

I mean people who grew up with Windows, before they started to program. People who have experienced all the glossy surface of Windows, but never the problems of those design decisions.

How does being the user of an operating system change how someone codes? A user can't tell by looking at the glossy surface how the system is programmed underneath.

Sure, Lennart Poettering of PulseAudio and systemd did say that the audio stacks of Windows and MacOS were superior to what they had on Linux at the time, but was that a blind assumption that Windows does it better (as you suggest), or was it a carefully considered examination of both programming structures? Considering that he has many tens of projects under his belt, I think that it is safe to say that he has some understandings of the problems of his design decisions.

Re:C: A Dead Language?

[james_gnz]

Microsoft's "shared source" under which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license.

Although the .NET licensing was seriously shady in the past, it's actually licensed under the MIT licence now (which is much like the BSD licence).

I don't think MS did this out of the goodness of their hearts. IMO, their initial BS faux free licensing wasn't fooling anyone, they weren't taking as much market share as they hoped from the incumbent Java (which is looking less free of late), Mono was breaking into their walled garden, and then Apple came out with their own walled garden, Swift. I think MS has switched from playing offence to playing defence here. i.e. I think they've given up on trying to screw people over with .NET, and decided to settle for trying to prevent people from being screwed over with Oracle Java or Apple Swift.

Regardless of MS's motives, however, .NET is actually free now.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Casandro]

Well "better" is not an objective thing. For Lennart, for example, "better" usually means "more complex" or "able to solve non-existent problems".

This is a certain mindset that is shaped by what you have experienced in your life. If you have used Windows before, you have never experienced the advantages of a unixoid system. For example you became accustomed to a program doing lots of things, instead of doing one thing properly and using simple interfaces to interface with other programs. Interprocess communication does exist on Windows, but it's highly complex so few programs actually implement it, making it fairly useless. You cannot just combine 2 programs without the creators having foreseen that option on Windows... while in an unixoid world you can do that easily.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[tlhIngan]

We now have a huge rush of people conditioned in a Windows world transferring the ideas they learned there to the userspace. Ideas like complex service management, binary log files or the ability for a normal userspace program to disable system shutdown.

The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.

And that's because userspace isn't simple.

How would you handle the following use case, using ALSA and scripts? You may not close the application in use, either.

Current setup: 1 sound card (1 microphone, 1 audio output). User is playing back music, and a VoIP application is running in the background.

User gets a VoIP call. User answers and starts conversation. User may or may not pause music.

User decides to conduct conversation in privacy, and plugs in USB headset (or Bluetooth headset, doesn't matter). User expects VoIP call to be routed to headset automatically (we will assume it was pre-configured)

User continues VoIP call using headset. (Music, if still playing, continues on speakers)

User hangs up, unplugs headset and resumes their work.

Go ahead, if you can do code it up in a simple, modular "unix like" way without a monolithic monstrosity.

And yes, this is a VERY common scenario - I've done it on Windows many times before - I'd answer a Skype call, tell them to hold while I plug in my headset (so I don't disturb everyone around me with what is effectively a speakerphone, and the mic and skype audio is routed to the headset. I did not close any application, did not hang up any phone calls, or anything.

As for SystemD, sysvinit is not it. Sysvinit scripts attempt to duplicate what init (provided as part of sysvinit, ironically) already does! init is not easy - pretty much every major UNIX system out there already went through the process, and most have settled on their own solution. (It took Apple maybe 4 tries over the years - there were times it only lasted one OS X version before it was scrapped).

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[F.Ultra]

Except of course that Windows does not have anything that even remotely resembles systemd (or journald).

The new licensing each core in the cluster will

[Joe_Dragon]

The new licensing each core in the cluster will drive people away from windows and not only that each server must have at least an 16 core license for it even if it has less then that.

Windows & Linux

[StormReaver]

I have a coworker who believes Microsoft will soon abandon its kernel, and have Windows running on a Linux kernel with a Windows GUI sitting on top of it. While such a notion was unthinkable in the 90's and 2000's, it is becoming more plausible as time goes by.

Re:Windows & Linux

[SurenEnfiajyan]

There are zero benefits of switching to the Linux kernel, this will only end up with an unnecessary modification of the userspace and QA rounds. Besides that, NT kernel is more advanced and featurefull compared to Linux. Even Google wants to get rid of it replacing with Magenta microkernel (recently renamed to Zircon) because Linux has a flawed and archaic design (for example the broken IO, see bug 12309) and the kernel developers refuse to provide stable ABI (stable-api-nonsense).

Re:Windows & Linux

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually that is what I was thinking, too.
Considering that MS once had its on Unix, Xenix, it is absurd what they did the last 25 years.
Having a Linux core like Apple has its BSD core makes perfectly sense.
Run Windows apps side by side with X11 and they would be a competition again. Now thy are only market leader in installations, not in growth or money.

Re:Windows & Linux

[PPH]

Run Windows apps side by side with X11

Or run Windows apps in X11. In a past life, I used to do exactly that. I had a Linux desktop (on a 200 MHz Dell). The company had an NT server farm hosting multiple Windows desktop sessions through a third party networked dirplay handler. This supported all the engineering folks with AIX, HP-UX, Sun and Linux desktops. Because office productivity*.

But this will take a bite out of Microsoft's per seat licensing model. When people realize how infrequently they need a Windows app the s/w purchase or monthly rental fees will dry up.

*When you aren't stuck with Windows, it's surprising how infrequently we had to fire up the Windows stuff. Once or twice a week was about average when some manager absolutely had to send out some PowerPoint crap.

Re:Windows & Linux

[nomadic]

You may want to keep an eye on that coworker; his/her judgment may not be the most reliable.

Re:Windows & Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems pretty unlikely. Microsoft seems to honestly believe the Windows kernel is the best thing since sliced bread. I could believe the Linux subsystem getting official support for Linux GUI apps as a way to merge Windows and Linux more, but I'd be surprised by that.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Casandro]

Uhm...

a) That's a very constructed setup
b) That's only an argument for _an_ audio daemon, not for one that's pseudo modular and virtually undebugable. The concept of an audio daemon can be done competently.

Besides all of that could be avoided by sticking with the unix philosophy. Would we just have extended terminal emulators to support GUIs, we wouldn't have the problems of X11 and audio. You'd have a sort of "Window manager" which can arrange your terminal windows on your screen, and also manage the audio. This would even give you usable network audio, as you could just ssh into a computer and get the audio to your local terminal.

MS is only looking after itself

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has backed up it's words with c#, .net core, Microsoft code editor, SQL server, and Git VFS all ported to Linux. Also Ubuntu for Windows 10 is coming along nicely as well.

Those all are tools used to make content and build systems for the Windows ecosystem!

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Gadget_Guy]

Well "better" is not an objective thing. For Lennart, for example, "better" usually means "more complex" or "able to solve non-existent problems".

If that is the case, and there is no problem that needs to be solved, then his projects will be ignored by distro creators. But wait! That isn't the case. It seems that those who make the distributions must disagree with you.

If you have used Windows before, you have never experienced the advantages of a unixoid system.

I can't understand how you can seriously say that someone who has been developing in the Linux world for at least 14 years and works for Red Hat has no understanding of the advantages of a unixoid system. Perhaps the problem is that you don't have enough experience with other systems to give you the sense of perspective and to avoid zealotry.

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[Casandro]

Well actually it does have binary log files. Nobody uses them, but if you dig down deep enough you'll find them. I don't know where current versions hide them, but they exist. Searching for "Windows log" will bring you to screenshots of that interface.

Same goes for opaque service management with dependencies. I think this used to be under "Control-Panel" -> "Services", and there are even crude command line tools available.

Of course it doesn't do DNS or NTP, but then again, those were exotic protocol when Windows NT was designed.

Nope.

[Gravis Zero]

Microsoft doesn't innovate, they copy.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't innovate, they copy.

More importantly, Microsoft doesn't matter anymore.

It's just that a lot of people haven't gotten the message yet.

Re: GPL: Intellectual Theft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
I seriously doubt a lawyer told you this as itâ(TM)s so wildly untrue. Many parts of Windows and most of MacOS are compiled with GCC.

Re: GPL: Intellectual Theft?

[Anonymous Coward]

This about the third or fourth of these long winded troll posts now. They look like pre-typed documents scattered with really obvious falsehoods meant as triggers, yet refer Windows 10 so can't be that old. Is it really trolling if you spend almost all of the effort yourself for very little reply, I wonder?

Re:C: A Dead Language?

[LesFerg]

Thanx, best laugh on slashdot in ages.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Casandro]

Essentially you are saying that someone who has 14 years of experience somehow knows better than people who have 20 and more years of experience?

If you look at it, all the "greybeards" are against SystemD.

Besides, and I know this is a very weak argument, Redhat is more an "Open Source" company not really interrested in Free (as in speech) software.

Embrace the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fine with Microsoft "embracing" linux as long as they accept the core values of the GPL. Again, we must distinguish quite clearly between "Free Software" and "Open Source"

Re: C: A Dead Language?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be more precise, the first hit of .NET is free. You have to pay for the more sophisticated layers, but the first hit is always free.

Trust us, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Windows is now a spy machine, but we can trust them to not make Linux one.

Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Systemd is a good example

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather silly scenario. When you plug in headphones, why wouldn't music go to them as well? You think nothing of bothering people with your noise, but get paranoid about them hearing the other side of your Skype call? Grow up a little and get back to us with a scenario that doesn't hinge on you being a jerk!

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Gadget_Guy]

Essentially you are saying that someone who has 14 years of experience somehow knows better than people who have 20 and more years of experience?

No. That is simply stupid and utterly irrelevant. Essentially I am saying that 14 years experience knows better than someone who has "never experienced the advantages of a unixoid system".

Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia as planned sort of well not really but it's not the thought that counts but the results speak

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the serious error to believe that the "problem" the Lennartware is trying to solve is related to the task they are claimed to do. They are not.

Lennart P is an employee of Redhat. Redhat are not only the biggest Linux company out there by a huge margin. They are also working very, very hard at ceasing to be "Linux". So, the main qualification for the Lennarware isn't that it solves any problem as such, but that it is different. Then, by using the muscle of being the biggest actor, and by funding a lot of the ongoing development, they can more or less force everyone else to follow.

This assures that Redhat stays in the lead, and allows them to indirectly lock people in into their eco-system, and make even more money by selling support and "certifications" for their broken by design, incompatible software.

That is the real business case for the Lennartware, not some imaginary audio or init-problems.

Re:No, it won't

[drinkypoo]

this attitude of driving off supporters will eventually cause Linux to extinguish itself.

Ironically, Linus' choice of GPL attracts supporters and is the reason why Linux is the only "OS" (kernel anyway) gaining market share. It continues to take servers away from Microsoft.

Microsoft isn't really doing much

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is how many actually bother to use Linux in any form on Windows? Other then a small percent of people who could actually benefit from such a multi OS platform? So you can run Windows games and run some sort of a shell for Linux? Personally if your using Linux on the desktop you've probably either dropped Windows altogether, or you duel boot or have a dedicated Windows PC. Microsoft isn't embracing Linux, unless you consider a one arm hug a embrace.

E.E.E: Containers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Number three still doesn't address their Hyper-V work and containers like you want it to. If they were strictly Linux in the cloud they wouldn't need to do that.

and what has google done?

[Anonymous Coward]

ruined android
ruined search and youtube (censorship)
ruined privacy
pissed of apple.
ugly mofo ceo

Scylla and Charybdis

[Hognoxious]

Microsoft and Poettering, Scylla and Charybdis.

Isn't it nice to have choices?

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the users

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that's a constructed scenario then you've clearly never worked in an office. How about you imagine the users having earphones plugged into their computer for the music. You still need to route the VoIP traffic to the new USB headset instead of the dummy earphones that are still playing music.

I was about 50 enterprise developers doing exactly this on a daily basis.

Re:No, it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of it is to make linux work inside windows

Re:C: A Dead Language?

[CustomSolvers2]

You should take a look at the other post below "A Replacement for C++", presumably written by the same funny troll (because I guess that this can be safely labelled as trolling, a good version though).

Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same Old Anti GPL Copypasta

Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[DrYak]

As soon as it feels it has enough power to do so, it will pervert the open source community around Linux.

But the peculiarity around "Linux", is that it is Copyleft. Not just any random thing where the source happen to be visible (as often the corporate friendly "open-source" buzzword is slapped around), but it on purpose follows the copyleft notions of the GPL.

Basically, this license gives you the right to do whatever you want with it BUT if you decide to give to someone else YOU MUST ABSOLUTELY provide with it the same freedom "to do whatever" that you receive it in the first.

And this not only concerns the Linux kernel itself, but a huge chunk of the GNU userspace that is usually found coupled with it on the server space that microsoft is targetting.

Meaning it nearly impossible to make your "very own private variant" of it, every modification of the Linux kernel, is still Linux.
They cannot "extend" it in the way the standard Microsoft EEE strategy works.
Microsoft managed to make their very own flavor of MS Java, Visual J++ and J# to Sun's Java.
Microsoft managed to make IE - a browser bringing wonderful "extensions" to HTML such as "ActiveX" binary/i386/Windows-only OLE/COM objects
But Microsoft cannot achieve the same with the Linux kernel or most of the GPLed userland.
By virtue of how GPL works, any fork of the linux kernel (e.g.: as currently happens in the embed world, specially with Android by chipset manufacturers) MUST also follow the GPL. Meaning if you give/sell away this forked kernel YOU MUST publish your modifications too. (Ask any of the few manufacturer who forgot to publish their modifications - most end-up being forced to comply, a couple got into legal trouble in court for refusing to do so).
That's one of the reason that drove Google to use a completely different userspace for Android (they needed their own Bionic C-lib if they wanted to switch away grom glibc's GPL).

So in the end :
- either the "microsoft Linux" implements a few useful features that people actually want, and kernel developers would be legally allowed to re-integrate them into the main upstream linux (that's exactly what is happening with Hyper-V and the various other microsoft virtualisation extensions that are useful to get VMs running on Microsoft's Azure cloud).
- or nobody gives a damn about these extensions and Microsoft fails to gain any traction with their variant.
There is simply no way to accomplish the "Extend, Estinguish" sequence on copyleft software.
That's actually part of the core reasons behind RMS' reasoning, and why he's still battling against various loopholes that some manufacturer try to find ("tivoization" - actually publishing the code, but managing to prevent you from using it on the device due to code-signing shenningans)
"UEFI Secure Boot" on ARM hardware (where, unlike PC Intel/AMD hardware, there's nothing in the UEFI standard mandating that the end-user could put their own keys) is the latest such failed attempt (the Linux echo-system managed to get shims signed by the official Microsoft key).

There won't be incompatible "Microsoft Visual Linux.NET" that kills the ecosystem. Either vanilla Linux eventually re-uptakes the modifications, or nobody gives a shit. GPL prevents it legally.

There's a reason why Ballmer called copyleft a "cancer".

All the development described here is for the benefit and enhancement of their own products, mainly because in the server space their lunch is being eaten by Linux.

And the problem is that, by now for Microsoft, trying to retake the server-space (specially on the cloud, in high-performance computing, etc.) is an already lost battle. Unlike their former turf (corporate servers, desktops, gaming machines) Microsoft is completely irrelevant in that field.

The same in the embed market (you keep hearing here and there a few chipset that get Windows 10 support. But nearly every single project you hear from runs

Re:Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[Junta]

While GPL protects the kernel form a code perspective, the practical reality and ecosystem is another matter.

If they *just* did the kernels and people by and large still sourced from distributions, then in practice a move that is bad for the community *might* result in fork and Microsoft's fork dying on the vine due to distribution disinterest.

Of course they have cozied up to RedHat, and recent history has shown that RedHat gets to call the shots in practice for every distro. So in a theoretical fork of kernel for MS versus 'traditional' Linux, there is a chance that RedHat now could throw in with a hypothetical MS fork for true technical belief or profit, though as you say GPL would mitigate the risk, though the value of a legal fork is reduced if none of the popular distributions would take them up on it because no one except RedHat will confidently step up and say "we can support a kernel".

Of course, lets consider the bigger picture. Having big influence in the kernel could hypothetically be part of a bigger strategy. Let's say that MS made a pure linux distro, and that was to start a fully compatible platform with RedHat (a la CentOS), which is free but with very credible path to full support (evidence of credible support being visibly employing core kernel developers). They also release same day with RedHat, because they have technical resources to do so, more than CentOS has. For a great deal of the business world, this could easily become *the* dominant distribution, with objections being more political and future looking than techincal ("it's the same stuff, can do the same thing, and they have developers and so they can deliver the support we need, stop saying that 'EEE' FUD crap, you're paranoid and even if it were true, we are businesses and we don't care").

After being established, they can do things that most businesses would roll with. They could replace Samba with a MS originated project (some BSD-style license, for example), which would quickly take over, because who knows SMB and AD better than Microsoft right? Samba is another troublesome GPL portion, but one they could easily replace given their position in the market.

Of course this replacement along the way could highlight their own LDAP or use OpenLDAP (BSD style license) as a base rather than 389 and whatever Kerberos they see fit. Suddenly MS 'owns' identity management for enterprise use of Linux.

If they felt particularly about GUI side, they could very likely forge a desktop offering alternative to KDE and Gnome, and successfully hide away the vast majority of user facing GPL licensed software.

Once their popular and now technically distinct product is well established, they can start skipped providing source for much of the distro (after all, the ecosystem consists of a *lot* of BSD style licensed software), providing source only for the GPL portions. Ultimately, they could even replace the kernel if they felt like it (WSL is a closed source implementation of kernel interfaces, which could double as a test run of a path to make a Linux distro with a closed source kernel).

I don't particularly think their chances in embedded are high, but I could easily believe a future where they have become *the* professional Unix-like vendor though shenanigans.

Re:Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with everything you said. The open source community as a whole seems to be moving away from the GPL; more corporate influence from companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple that prefer BSD-style licenses (as opposed to, say, RedHat which, to my knowledge, goes for [L]GPL), is a worrying trend for those of us who want to see the Linux ecosystem remain open. Android is already a good example of a Linux-based ecosystem where the GPL affects so little of the code that it doesn't seem to matter. Google still releases AOSP, but when they feel like it and it includes only whatever subset of Android they feel like releasing.

Re: Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[Monster_user]

Entirely possible, if there are enough business guys, as opposed to *Nix/GPL religous types, in control of the Enterprise deployments.

However, Linux was originally a hobbyist OS, which was shared for free. A community project. Should Microsoft dominate the OS, Linus would likely fork Linux and start an entirely different ecosystem. Then depending on Microsoft's licensing practices, Linus' Linux would end up back on top in a decade or two.

Only possible alternative is for Microsoft to avoid licensing costs for "Xenix 2.0", until all the old guard have passed away. Let the world forget there ever was an original "Linux". Then pull an SCO.

Re:Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

There is simply no way to accomplish the "Extend, Estinguish" sequence on copyleft software.

Tell that to Lennart Poettering and his crew. Arch, Debian, and others are now Red Hat with a different logo.

Re:Copyleft: hard to extend/extinguish

[Junta]

Which is funny, since GPL means it's harder for a competitor to take your work and commercialize it without ability to enable you to compete back, and as long you you do copyright assignment, you are still free to close source if you *really* want, because the copyright holder is the only one with the right to sue for GPL violation.

So the GPL family is perfect for producing things that you don't want *other* companies to close up. Copryright assignment can be a red flag, but corporations and organizations do worse all the time.

Frankly, people that think closed source is the path to IP protection are missing out. In practice, open source doesn't inspire competition. I challenge folks to look for a single example of a company's open sourced product being turned against them into the market...

Coming Soon

[xeoron]

Microsoft Linux, the distribution you can trust with your desktop and enterprise systems.

I honestly don't believe that

[bravecanadian]

Microsoft is as committed to Windows as they were in the past. The company is not as reliant on that lockin any longer since the future for the company is Azure and online services like Office 365.

Outside Windows Server for specific tasks and in-house applications/data centers, I don't think they are as fiercely protective of the OS.

I've often said they should just consolidate the Windows desktop to one version and give it away free (they practically did for Windows 10 free upgrades already).

Best interests

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in microsofts best interests to improve Linux in ways that allow it to be run in. VM , as that is what the Linux subsystem is. Wether that improves Azure or not is another question, as all VM implementations are very expensive in overhead and unsuitable for low-latency operations (telephony, MMORPG's and such)

We wouldn't even be discussing VM's at all if it wasn't for Amazon. Amazon's VM's are some of the worst, being abused for all kinds of malware and DDoS that it again is in Microsoft's best interests to fix Linux where it is deficient, because otherwise Widnows will get the blame.

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the users

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness you only speak for yourself because you have lost the arguement for yourself. Go away before you interfere further in the discussion.

No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger question is whether Microsoft will finally abandon their kernel and adopt a modern POSIX compliance.

No user really demands the dos prompt from 1982 or C:\.

Don't bend over in front of Microsoft

[boudie2]

Still trying to figure out how Bill Gates said he was going to give away all of his money years ago yet he has more money than he ever did. Apparently you can't take anything at face value anymore

Just testing..

[Anonymous Coward]

They might as well test their ideas on the field by using Linux as a platform. Algorithms that do work could then be transferred to the proprietary products, while the code stays under the open source.

Think about it... after systemd ...

[QuietLagoon]

... how much more damage can Microsoft possibly do to Linux distributions?

Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same old Microsoft- itâ(TM)s as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Infiltrate, Assimilat, Annihilate.

Hell no.

[tietokone-olmi]

This is Microsoft we're talking about. The company that engages in behind-the-scenes extortion of Android device brands and manufacturers using their (seriously aging) VFAT patents. I'm sure they're able to say "b-but, we're the good guys now!", but in dealing with people like these one must always understand there's nothing stopping "the bad guy" from saying that as well.

On a practical level, collaboration with Microsoft causes companies to die. Look at Nokia: it never had a chance. I only hope that Red Hat lets Microsoft in balls-deep.

Re:Hell no.

[thegarbz]

I'm sure they're able to say "b-but, we're the good guys now!"

They aren't good guys, and being bad guys doesn't stop them from contributing to Linux. They do what makes business sense, and as a cloud platform provider currently using Linux to print money faster than a central bank it stands to reason that they would contribute to it. This has no bearing on their morality.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

Casandro, it's pointless to try to argue this with Gadget_Guy because he's a diehard Windows enthusiast. For example, see

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10812409&cid=54732853

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

How can it be a constructed setup if the person is doing it all the time?

Its called welcome to the 2010's, where people expect things to just work and to transfer audio/video/whatever to whatever device they are using at that moment.

The most interesting point though is this simple one - despite everyone supposedly hating the solutions like Pulseaudio and Systemd nobody has created an alternative - which means either the hate isn't as widespread as some would like everyone to believe, or there aren't the simpler solutions that the haters like to claim.

No.

[Quinn_Inuit]

This comment brought to you by Betteridge's law of headlines. Saving you from having to read TFAs since 1991!

Re: C: A Dead Language?

[cyber-vandal]

What part of .NET do you have to pay for?

Re: C: A Dead Language?

[cyber-vandal]

COBOL is unfortunately very much alive.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

Well "better" is not an objective thing. For Lennart, for example, "better" usually means "more complex" or "able to solve non-existent problems".

If that is the case, and there is no problem that needs to be solved, then his projects will be ignored by distro creators. But wait! That isn't the case. It seems that those who make the distributions must disagree with you.

Umm, is this not just the sort of point Casandro was making? The 'Windows mentality' is taking over.

I WARNED YOU BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN!

[Anonymous Coward]

I TOLD all of you that Microsoft would do whatever it could to take over and subvert Linux but you didn't listen and now it may be too late to save the world from being Microsoft only! DO WHAT YOU CAN TO SAVE IT, YOU FOOLS!

"Go on then," you say..... Okay, sir, I will.

[bdwoolman]

As I heard it... The sad story of Wordperfect for Windows is a pretty clear example of MS EEE. The referenced Wikipedia article says: " Its (WordPerfect's) dominant position ended after a flubbed release for Microsoft Windows, followed by a long delay before introducing an improved version.

So here's the thing. The flubbed release was no accident... or so the story goes. The WordPerfect developers were apparently sabotaged by their Microsoft partners. In the process of bug fixing Microsoft supposedly cherry picked WordPerfect code and MS Word was born. Unlike WordPerfect, it worked on Windows! Perfectly! EEE.... QED

I will add that this was at a time when things were pretty collegial among developers (Or were expected to be). So the sandbagging was pretty unexpected and unsuspected... For a while.

Full disclosure. I am not a MS hater. Really. They raised a lot of other boats. But the company is a savage competitor and always has been. I would be skeptical that MS contributions to Linux would be truer to FOSS principles than to MS's long term goals..

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, this is a VERY common scenario - I've done it on Windows many times before

Good on you. I can't even get most Windows programs to recognize 'hotplugged' headphones without a restart, never mind USB headphones.

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[F.Ultra]

Yes the Windows System Logger uses a binary on-disk format which journald also does but there ends the single similarity between the two. If you have ever used both and programmed for both you would know this (I have extensively).

Adobe VP

[EnsilZah]

If he's so interested in developments in Linux, could he maybe have a word or two with other VPs in his own company?

Adobe software is the only thing keeping me on Windows, all other software I use professionally has Linux versions.

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Gadget_Guy]

Umm, is this not just the sort of point Casandro was making?

No. Windows doesn't have distros, so how can that possibly be the same thing?

Re: GPL: Intellectual Theft?

[Insanity Defense]

This about the third or fourth of these long winded troll posts now. They look like pre-typed documents scattered with really obvious falsehoods meant as triggers, yet refer Windows 10 so can't be that old. Is it really trolling if you spend almost all of the effort yourself for very little reply, I wonder?

That is exactly what they are. Just copy and paste trolls. Some of them claim to be Visual Basic programmers working on high level stuff NOW when VB hasn't had support for 9 years. Some claim to be VB KERNEL programmers.

Hiring Linux developers is good?

[wardk]

Isn't this one of Microsoft's proven methods of killing things? (buying them)

Please, ask Linus

[aglider]

I am looking forward to read his kind answer!

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[fahrbot-bot]

Except of course that Windows does not have anything that even remotely resembles systemd (or journald).

Unless you consider svchost.exe as something similar to "systemd" -- unless you were being sarcastic. And, as someone else mentioned, Windows does have binary log / event files.

So ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's jump ship and join xBSD. They seem to be much more interested in quality (which is equivalent to security) anyway.

If Torvalds allows them to wreck the Linux kernel he should go under with RHAT.

Nokia???

[bothorsen]

Nokia killed themselves because they were a bunch of clueless morons. And don't blame MS for giving them the CEO that killed it. He was hired by the Nokia board to execute exactly the strategy that he did (although he did royally f*** that up). MS had nothing to do with that gigantic blowup.

NO... just NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS is driving then it really isn't innovation. The best MS has ever been able to do is badly copy someone else's work and call it innovation.

Linux has enough trouble with the systemd crowd destroying Linux by making it more like Windows. Not an improvement, let alone an innovation.

Note... if systemd stuck to just being an init system then MAYBE it would be worth considering. Since it has become a cancer engulfing the OS it is more Windows like than Unix like and NOT a very good idea.

Sadly, bad ideas have a way of becoming popular... just look at the forced spyware that MS Windows has become.
--
Steve (AC because I haven't bothered to register in all these years)

MS Propaganda ARMY

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost any serious discussion of software which is commercially relevant to MSFT will see these posts by (what I call) the Microsoft Propaganda Army. MS knows, like IBM knew even before, that they and their products are in fact REPLACEABLE. They always were.

So IBM and MSFT will blast out myths, lies and half-truths about competing systems. It is very much comparable to the COMINTERN propaganda. They will monitor every relevant discussion system and "engage" if they deem it to be a threat. Other companies do this to a lesser degree.

Sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

...they do not engage in serious discussion. They will simply post rubbish in an effort to drag down the politeness of the discussion. In order to demoralize serious participants. They will insult you in any possible way, "the more personal the better".

We have seen this here and on other discussion forums. That's how MSFT propaganda operates for at least 15 years now.

And they know the Linux and FOSS guys fight back on the propaganda front. They often talk of "penguins" when they refer to FOSS advocates.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it won't.

Next question?

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[mrons]

If you look at it, all the "greybeards" are against SystemD.

Well I'm a "greybeard" with over 20 years Unix/Linux experience and I love systemd (and pulseaudio for that matter).
Hate it when I have to use a system without systemd.

And it's "systemd" not "SystemD"

Does the ridiculous MOOXML still exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Microsoft hasn't changed.

Apps !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The appy appers need to app app the apps as they are apping apps, not LUDDITE non apping apps !!
This leads to apping apps appers and apps.

According to Betteridge:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's tough to imagine ANY innovation being driven by microsoft.

commitment to windows?

[superwiz]

Last I heard MS can't end-of-life Windows fast enough. This is despite the clear wishes of its customers.

Yes, yes! Save us!

[nagora]

Save us from all those annoying "free to move to another supplier" politics! Free us from all those "agreed standards for interchange" politics! I've been so burdened with files and protocols that can be relied on to work no matter who makes the equipment or software. I can't take it much more! How I wish EVERY standard had an "extended" version that only Microsoft systems understands! How I hate having word processing document formats that can be read by scripts to do analysis and manipulation on them! IT'S ALL POLITCS! I just want to shovel money into the nearest MS bank account. Is that so much to ask?

Visual Studio Code on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I was genuinely surprised when I found this:

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/setup/linux

I was even more surprised when it worked every bit as well as I had hoped in my most optimistic moment.

Re:Visual Studio Code on Linux

[CustomSolvers2]

Visual Studio Code is a simple text editor; making it compatible with a wide variety of scenarios isn't difficult. On the other hand, Visual Studio and the whole .NET Framework working fine on Linux would be quite surprising.

The true answer is!

[oldgraybeard]

No!!!

Sure MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever does not play your tune must be a "Nazi". Yawn.

Sure, PropagandaBoy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with the Keylogger OS "Windows 10". Wo needs privacy, anyway ?

Seriosuly, MSFT has only grown worse. Not better.

For certain values of "innovation"

[whitroth]

One wonders how much M$ paid RH to let Pottering push systemd.....

Re:Actually the bigger influence is in the userspa

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like the UNIX developer ideas ever did the Desktop OS any favors. Hey, you know what's great? Installing applications and having them mix their own files with the system's all over the hierarchy! That way, when you want to uninstall something, it's so complicated that you need a special tool to manage it for you! I've got a great idea guys, let's keep making our display server more hairy and complex so that we can still run Xeyes over a network! Driver abstraction API? Who needs that? Just open source your product and recompile it for every kernel patch. Want to know what the base system includes so you can keep your dependencies minimal? Too bad! Everything and anything is the "base system" because we have no concept of separation between system and application! If you open sourced your product all your problems would go away...

Obviously embrace, extend, extinguish

[HermMunster]

To anyone that has been involved in the industry and also paid attention to what happened in the 90s they know that this is nothing but embrace, extend, extinguish. This needs to be shouted loudly so that those that seem to think that Microsoft is benovelent these days get the message. All the work done and progress accomplished could be destroyed because the younger generation wasn't around and aren't aware that this is what Microsoft does.

Anyone that followed Microsoft in the 90s knows that they are copycats rarely themselves creating new technology. Maybe there have been a couple products that were invented by Microsoft but we must admit that Microsoft is not capable of new and innovative ideas.

If Microsoft can't come up with new innovative ideas and they are mostly a company bent on dominating all markets then we can only conclude that Microsoft's participation in Linux is not going to be a positive thing.

I would say also that all code submitted by Microsoft should be reviewed and vetted for not just privacy issues but directional impact.

Let's give it proper branding, then: Linnuvation

[Anonymous Coward]

And I dare MS to use that term!

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[F.Ultra]

Which just shows that you either don't know what svchost does on Windows or what systemd does on Linux, there isn't even the slightest of equivalence between the two.

And while the Windows Event Logger does use a binary on-disk format just like journald does, that is the only similarity (and the on-disk format of the Windows Event Logger is not the problem with that system to begin with).

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[fahrbot-bot]

Which just shows that you either don't know what svchost does on Windows or what systemd does on Linux, there isn't even the slightest of equivalence between the two.

I actually do know what both do and they have been compared - not for functionality, but rather as to how they are designed. A (large) single program doing multiple things that would probably be better implemented as separate programs. Your post said, "Windows does not have anything that even remotely resembles systemd (or journald)." Svchost does in some respects. I'm surprised I had to spell this out for you.

In addition, svshost handles many network oriented functions, as does systemd -- which it probably should not.

Re: Actually the bigger influence is in the usersp

[F.Ultra]

No that is not what svchost does, svchost is just a launcher for system daemons written as DLL:s instead of as separate binaries. The main and major problem with it was that is was manna from heaven for malware writers since they could hide among the millions of svchost.exe processes in i.e Task Manager since it was not possible to know what each and every instance did (since it only loaded a DLL where the actual running code is).

systemd does not provide such a facility at all which makes the comparison completely laughable. Nor does systemd "a single program doing multiple things" which one more time shows that you still confuse systemd the init system with systemd the project.

MS tries pushing more win10-only-dflt-compat

[lpq]

They are contributing to cifs? That explains the push to jump from a default of SMB 1.0 (unsafe on external-exposed networks) to a SMB default that would exclude win7 by default. Sure users could reset the proto back to SMB2.1, for Win7, but MS-CIFS contributors were pushing for an SMB3.x default that would have excluded Win7. Linus asked why, but never got a solid answer. Supposedly a multi-proto version was to be the default in the next (4.14) release that should allow Win7 by default, but in 4.13, CIFS developers put in a default to exclude Win7.

I wondered why Linux devs would be so "hot" on the Win10 SMB3 when from a linux point of view, they shouldn't care. Now I know why...