Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.