Microsoft and Canonical Make Custom Linux Kernel (neowin.net)

Billly Gates writes: Microsoft and Canonical's relationship is getting closer besides Ubuntu for Windows. Azure will soon be offering more customized Ubuntu containers with a MS optimized kernel. Uname -r will show 4.11.0-1011-azure for Ubuntu cloud based 16.04 LTS. If you want the non MS kernel you can still use it on Azure by typing:
$ sudo apt install linux-virtual linux-cloud-tools-virtual
$ sudo apt purge linux*azure
$ sudo reboot
The article mentions several benefits over the generic Linux kernel for Azure

Comments

Does it provide necessary features?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as native hooks for telemetry?

Re:Does it provide necessary features?

[enrique556]

You may laugh, but their preview of MS SQL server for linux actually includes a telemetry service which automatically starts (a dependency I'm guessing) when you start the sql service. When you stop the sql service, of course, that doesn't stop the telemetry.
I suppose it's fair that a preview would include telemetry, but there you go, they already have telemetry for linux systems.

FTFY

[El Cubano]

If you want the non MS kernel you can still use it by not using Microsoft's cloud platform in the first place

There. FTFY.

Now, this is a serious question, but what reason could someone have for running Linux on Azure? Are there not any of a multitude of other better platforms out there for running Linux? I mean, I certainly understand if you are all in for Microsoft with things like Exchange, SQL server, AD, Sharepoint, etc., their cloud platform sort of make sense. But this, Ubuntu (or any other Linux) on Azure is something that simply does not make sense to me.

Re:FTFY

[swb]

I think Microsoft is giving away a certain amount of Azure to anybody who uses O365 in any significant way, and there's probably a lot of mixed infrastructure shops with both MS and Linux running. What better way to lure them in deeper?

At the end of the day, MS values them more as cloud resource consumers than software licensees.

It might even make sense for someone who can run a workload on any cloud stack to figure out how to arbitrage their workload where it's cheapest, gain cross-cloud redundancy, etc.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

So you run Linux on Azure because Windows is the "Gold Standard"? Do you also drive a red car because green is your favorite color?

Re:FTFY

[Billly Gates]

If you want the non MS kernel you can still use it by not using Microsoft's cloud platform in the first place

There. FTFY.

Now, this is a serious question, but what reason could someone have for running Linux on Azure? Are there not any of a multitude of other better platforms out there for running Linux? I mean, I certainly understand if you are all in for Microsoft with things like Exchange, SQL server, AD, Sharepoint, etc., their cloud platform sort of make sense. But this, Ubuntu (or any other Linux) on Azure is something that simply does not make sense to me.

FYI I am the submitter

The answer is easy. Corporations who already use Azure with Azure Active Directory and Office 365. Visual Studio support and the customers' internal developers are used to the Azure API's and frameworks as they use it for their other Windows specific services. Might as well keep using the APIs and frameworks for their other platforms rather than learning Amazon and dealing with 2 clouds.

Microsoft also bundles Azure licensing too for enterprise customers so it maybe a little cheaper if you already have Azure credits to just fire up a Linux container if the boss for example wants to close one of the datacenters to cut electricity costs and move their Linux based servers. Amazon already contributes alot of Linux code to get it run on their E3 and E5 platforms I guess this is not surprising that MS is doing the same.

Microsoft's incentive to being friendly to OSS and Linux now is to make money this way. Microsoft makes money either way in this model whether you run Windows or not. I have not written any software on Azure but it supports FreeBSD as well and RedHat. Maybe the Redhat image already has an MS optimized kernel that I am not aware of? Visual Studio does have IOT Python support for Azure so it looks like they really are not doing win32 lockin at all with Azure but I could be wrong. Anyone knowledge care to comment and how it compares to Amazon's cloud services?

I figured this story would make slashdotters uncomfortable, but I kind of like this arrangement.

  If you do not want to use their products don't. MS doesn't have to Extend, Expand, and Extinguish standards or lock things down to win32 which we all hate! Rather they make the APIs available to all platforms and several languages to their cloud offerings so you an keep using Linux or use Amazon if you want. However, the downside is the cloud framework hooks lock you into Azure. Amazon though sadly is doing the same. So the OS now is Azure and Windows is just one of the shells on top. Linux is another.

Re:FTFY

[0100010001010011]

Microsoft the Gold Standard. I've worked two places that are looking at Azure and it's made using Linux actually easier.

"Hey boss, I need some cheap servers to test something out, I can do it with Microsoft". We get billed. I get to use Linux. The company gets "Microsoft".

Re:FTFY

[MrKaos]

Wow, it hasn't even been 10 minutes and something that is not even critical of MS and just paints their reality has been down-modded?

Looks like there is some power shilling going on here or are you so sensitive to some non existent ad-homiem attack? Concerned about my spelling, I did say that I post post hungover, occasionally. Go ahead, mod me down, it just shows how much more credible my argument is and that the truth really hurts.

Look if it makes you feel better, I thing the MS Server line has come a long way, finally a decent file system and I like the MS is taking a stand on some issues even if it is noise. Microsoft added WSL and because of that I gave Win 10 a chance when I finally got to the point that I realized I didn't need MS anywhere anymore. If you don't get it that I'm not being critical and just pointing to how things have changed then how do you expect to adapt to reality?

That's what the technology industry is and that is what MS is doing.

Re:FTFY

[ElizabethGreene]

Hi. I work for Microsoft as a Dedicated Support Engineer. I helped a customer setup three Linux boxes in Azure last week. Why? The boxes were Lucent DNS .ova appliances. They wanted to keep the cloud DNS infrastructure the same what was on premise. I helped them setup an Apache httpd reverse proxy too.

Microsoft is not the company they used to be. If you don't believe that, you only have to look as far as the Top Linux kernel contributors list to see it.

Re:FTFY

[somenickname]

If you do not want to use their products don't. MS doesn't have to Extend, Expand, and Extinguish standards or lock things down to win32 which we all hate! Rather they make the APIs available to all platforms and several languages to their cloud offerings so you an keep using Linux or use Amazon if you want. However, the downside is the cloud framework hooks lock you into Azure. Amazon though sadly is doing the same. So the OS now is Azure and Windows is just one of the shells on top. Linux is another.

Even as a borderline Fanatical Linux Guy, I'm pretty much OK with this. It sounds like they are just adding some kernel tweaks to make it work better with their hypervisor. No real drama there. Ubuntu has a bunch of different kernel flavors that are similar in nature.

Having said that, if they start creeping into userspace, it's time to get out your pitchforks and torches.

Re:FTFY

[Billly Gates]

If you do not want to use their products don't. MS doesn't have to Extend, Expand, and Extinguish standards or lock things down to win32 which we all hate! Rather they make the APIs available to all platforms and several languages to their cloud offerings so you an keep using Linux or use Amazon if you want. However, the downside is the cloud framework hooks lock you into Azure. Amazon though sadly is doing the same. So the OS now is Azure and Windows is just one of the shells on top. Linux is another.

Even as a borderline Fanatical Linux Guy, I'm pretty much OK with this. It sounds like they are just adding some kernel tweaks to make it work better with their hypervisor. No real drama there. Ubuntu has a bunch of different kernel flavors that are similar in nature.

Having said that, if they start creeping into userspace, it's time to get out your pitchforks and torches.

They are are by replacing mono with .NET CORE 2.0 and Microsoft Code editor. It is not manditory to use these but it seems MS is not considering Windows their OS anymore. Rather Azure is there OS and Windows or Linux is the shell on top again. It makes sense since SQL Server for Linux .NET core and Microsoft Code are really to help mobile developers write code which of course is awesome if they use Azure IOT.

I do not know if I like it, but I think it benefits users more than the when Bill Gates ran the show and made everything different as possible to encourage lockin. What I do not like about Amazon and Azure is that it is not just hosting an OS. The frameworks and APIs lock you in similiar to win32 and COM.

I can see the lockin all over again. But this time the lockin will be on your Linux install as the code can only be run on the cloud.

Re:FTFY

[thegarbz]

If you want the non MS kernel you can still use it by not using Microsoft's cloud platform in the first place

There. FTFY.

Yeah, negotiating an enterprise license with an alternative vendor sounds much easier than typing 3 lines into a console :-)

Now, this is a serious question, but what reason could someone have for running Linux on Azure? Are there not any of a multitude of other better platforms out there for running Linux?

There are, but how many of those fit into existing enterprise agreements? How many of those use the same services by the same vendor as you're already doing business with?

Ubuntu (or any other Linux) on Azure is something that simply does not make sense to me.

You don't have a purchasing department or enterprise licenses where you work do you? The choice of vendor is often one you don't get to make. Be thankful that you have the technical options available to you from the existing vendors.

Re:FTFY

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If you want the non MS kernel you can still use it by not using Microsoft's cloud platform in the first place

Exactly. And frankly, as someone who's worked with both platforms, Amazon's Web Services is a far better platform and has much better infrastructure than Azure.

I've worked with both of them (currently working in an AWS shop) and although Azure has some great features, AWS is definitely better overall.

Re:FTFY

[PCM2]

Microsoft is not the company they used to be. If you don't believe that, you only have to look as far as the Top Linux kernel contributors list to see it.

That's a joke. The only times Microsoft has made that list is when it added thousands of lines of code to the kernel to support its own stuff, like Hyper-V, Azure, etc. The reason Microsoft had to write all that code itself was because nobody else was interested.

Obligatory

[rrohbeck]

1. Embrace
2. Extend

Re:Obligatory

[Z80a]

2.5. Fill with ads

EEE

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Embrace,. Check.

Extend. Check.

Will give you three guesses for what comes next.

Re:EEE

[bobstreo]

Embrace,. Check.

Extend. Check.

Will give you three guesses for what comes next.

Debian or CentOS on some other cloud?

Re:EEE

[TrekkieGod]

We're already at "spew conspiracy theories."

Yes, I remember the Microsoft of the 1990s. However, Microsoft has been Open Source friendly for a far longer time than the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish tactics of the past. Anybody still freaking out about them is actually being counter-productivity, by not giving credit to companies who actually did become better.

People like you were the ones sounding the horn when Microsoft created the .Net framework over a decade ago as an open standard and were screaming that they didn't want Mono in Linux because they were just about to sue everyone for patent infringement. Microsoft responded by publishing a covenant not to sue, and that the patents would be used defensively opened. Then people like you screamed that this covenant was not legally binding, because they were ignorant of the concept of estoppel, I guess. Did any of your fears come to pass?

Yes, Microsoft just extended the Linux kernel. To operate with a Microsoft service, affecting absolutely nobody else. That adds no additional features other than improved performance in their cloud service. We're supposed to all be freaking out that they're planning on destroying Linux when they're doing something that makes using Linux better in their cloud environment so they can better compete with the same service on Amazon EC2? Please. We're supposed to be afraid of extensions to a GPLv2 project that is necessarily open source as a result of the kernel license? Are you insane, what exactly is the mechanism for "extinguish" here? It's not like they can lock up any of the cool stuff they added, if people think it's valuable, they can get what they like and merge it to the mainstream kernel, Microsoft can't stop them. This is no different than a variety of custom kernel options that ubuntu offers, which already included one that's specialized for virtual machines.

This isn't 1999, and Canonical isn't SCO. Microsoft has been acting like a trustworthy company for a very long time, and contributed a good deal to various open source projects. Get over the evils of the past and reward a company for making a fantastic turnaround. Yes, it's true, they didn't do it to be nice, but because they don't have the same monopoly position they used to: nevertheless, they could have died off, but instead maintained relevance in the industry by working well with others. That's a good thing.

Close releationships?

[aglider]

Microsoft and Canonical's relationship is getting closer besides Ubuntu for Windows.

Microsoft to buy Canonical. The end of Ubuntu.

Canonical have a custom Ubuntu kernel for AWS too

[Sits]

This isn't the first time that Canonical have produced a custom kernel for a cloud provider platform. Earlier in the year they came out with a custom Ubuntu kernel for the same for AWS so it sounds like strategy they're pursuing in general. Other than the reduced size I'd hope these improvements end up in the mainline kernel in the end (perhaps these changes already have and these are just backports?)...

Re:Canonical have a custom Ubuntu kernel for AWS t

[Bert64]

There aren't really any changes so much as reconfiguration...
A generic kernel needs a complete set of drivers for all the hardware it *might* be installed on, whereas a cloud hypervisor is a fixed target. You can safely remove support for physical devices, and for older processors than those used by the cloud host which results in a smaller better optimized kernel. I've done exactly the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, as i have 100+ vm images running on the same hypervisor and underlying physical machines.