Slashdot Mirror
Linux Now Dominates Azure (zdnet.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Three years ago, Mark Russinovich, CTO of Azure, Microsoft's cloud program, said, "One in four [Azure] instances are Linux." Then, in 2017, it was 40 percent Azure virtual machines (VM) were Linux. Today, Scott Guthrie, Microsoft's executive vice president of the cloud and enterprise group, said in an interview, "Slightly over half of Azure VMs are Linux. That's right. Microsoft's prize cloud, Linux, not Windows Server, is now the most popular operating system. Windows Server isn't going to be making a come back. Every month, Linux goes up," Guthrie said. And it's not just Azure users who are turning to Linux.
"Native Azure services are often running on Linux," Guthrie added. "Microsoft is building more of these services. For example, Azure's Software Defined Network (SDN) is based on Linux." It's not just on Azure that Microsoft is embracing Linux. "Look at our simultaneous release of SQL Server on Linux. All of our projects now run on Linux," Guthrie said.
"Native Azure services are often running on Linux," Guthrie added. "Microsoft is building more of these services. For example, Azure's Software Defined Network (SDN) is based on Linux." It's not just on Azure that Microsoft is embracing Linux. "Look at our simultaneous release of SQL Server on Linux. All of our projects now run on Linux," Guthrie said.
It's more that if you are doing complicated, unique, serious stuff at a HUGE scale, Unix/Linux is just better. It's built for that kind of thing. The networking and storage functionality/flexibility alone is enough to make Linux the obvious choice for stuff like Azure services. And, of course, you can script literally anything in Linux. You can't in Windows.
Yeah, Microsoft *could* add all that stuff into Windows, but why? Who would use it besides them? And it would cost them a ton of money to develop. Linux is free.
From what I can tell, under the new leadership, Microsoft likes making money more than forcing Windows and Office on users. If they can make money selling Linux services for less effort, why not do so?
I think this is a great development and I respect where Satya Nadella is taking the company. I like the prospect of Microsoft being a powerful, profitable software company that plays well with others. I get the impression Nadella does as well.
For little itty-bitty microprocessors, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For appliance type devices (Home automation, etc), Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For embedded uses (cars, machinery, etc), Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For powerful hand-held computing devices, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For services, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For large horizontally-scaled services, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For scientific computing, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
For supercomputing, Linux is better than anything Microsoft has.
The only holdout of Windows is the desktop and gaming market, and god help them if they ever manage to kill off Windows as a viable gaming choice in the hope that it would boost their XBox division: consoles spend much less time dominating in each generation.
Even if they manage to make XBox the number one console in a single generation they are never going to hold on to that crown in succeeding generations.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Running a Linux VM on windows makes it dependent on Win10's vulnerabilities, security holes, etc...
Better would be to run Win10 as a VM on Linux.
Better yet, don't use Win10 at all. Save yourself hundreds of bucks and forget Win10's problems. Isn't being on Microsoft's cash treadmill for 20 years enough punishment?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
If only Windows Server OS was free as in beer.
I still wouldn't trust it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Just make your next desktop OS (Windows XI ?) be a Linux based, MS ripped-from-somewhere GUI, and you're all set.
That won't work. Their spyware depends on being in the OS, not just in the GUI. Let's say they made a non-GPL GUI that was bundled with the GPL OS. They'd still have to publish the OS sources, and then people would just take the spyware out (and put in features designed to block any spyware embedded in the GUI.) It's not just that they "wouldn't" do that, they can't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a lot less trivial than downloading a Centos .iso, and as you mentioned it's only good for a few months.
Sure! Linux is free if your time is free. Or did you mean Free As In Beer? Perhaps you meant Free As In Freedom? Well now we've opened the can of worms for sure, haven't we?
The exact same can be said of windows...
If you don't have the skills or the time to invest, then the end result will be unstable and massively insecure. Getting a windows environment running decently and keeping it that way requires a significant investment.
Linux isn't any different, but unlike windows it doesn't pretend to be.
The idea that "linux is free" applies mostly to very large tech companies like amazon and google, they do have the skills to implement linux or windows, yet they choose linux because it scales better both technically and financially.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Yet half the stuff I ask about configuring Windows the result is "oh it's easy, just edit these registry entries or run these PowerShell commends" which is no different.
Familiarity is often mistakenly conflated with intuitiveness.