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."
Poor, defenceless, multi-billion-dollar Microsoft.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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