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.

Comments

If only

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Windows Server OS was free as in beer. Its cost is a barrier to entry for those wanting to learn it, and develop on it.

Re:If only

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that even internal to MS, Windows Server was always thought of as a glorified file server, not an application server. Applications were supposed to run on the main desktop OS and link back to either files or a database, but true multi-user networked applications were anathema to Windows desktop sales and the whole .Net runtime idea. The heavy lifting was local, and the network resources were light. Now, what choice to you have with Azure? You can't run applications locally, so that "advantage" goes out the window--so to speak.

Re:If only

[thegreatbob]

Primarily regarding learning, obtaining a 180 day evaluation copy is trivial:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...

Maybe not so if you're allergic to filling out forms, but it seems not to care very much about the information provided. It has long been possible to do this, even without MSDN or Technet. Sometimes the evaluation disks are distributed with learning material, also.

Regarding development, Windows Professional versions typically meet all of the requirements, unless you're trying to interact with stuff that simply does not exist in consumer Windows versions.

Re:If only

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Windows Server OS was free as in beer.

If only Linux on the desktop wasn't a pile of unusable shit that makes Windows 10 look good.

Says the WIndows fanboy who never learned to use Linux or is afraid to try.
(Now, tell me you tried it 20 years ago and it didn't work)

Re:If only

[Tough Love]

If only Windows Server OS was free as in beer.

I still wouldn't trust it.

Re: If only

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot less trivial than downloading a Centos .iso, and as you mentioned it's only good for a few months.

Re:If only

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I'm surprised they're using outside product

[commodore64_love]

I always read that Microsoft had a policy of using its Own software, so the staff could easily identify bugs & bad user interfaces (and improve them). Maybe they've abandoned that philosophy.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[realmolo]

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.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[toadlife]

And, of course, you can script literally anything in Linux. You can't in Windows.

Absolute nonsense.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[goose-incarnated]

Yeah. To expand on that:-

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.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[drinkypoo]

I always read that Microsoft had a policy of using its Own software, so the staff could easily identify bugs & bad user interfaces (and improve them). Maybe they've abandoned that philosophy.

The problem is that Windows' networking is poop. Linux, on the other hand, has AFAICT the fastest and most capable networking stack of any full-fledged OS on the planet outside of FreeBSD... and have you ever dealt with BSD users? I'd rather take a performance hit.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[toadlife]

You would use powershell in lieu of the old sc utility...

Set-Service
Get-Service
New-Service
Restart-Service
Resume-Service
Start-Service
Stop-Service
Suspend-Service

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[drinkypoo]

and have you ever dealt with BSD users? I'd rather take a performance hit.

*sadface*

I literally got into Linux because the FreeBSD users I knew were ever so much more RTFMish than the Linux users. At the time, just getting BSD installed was a PITA, and mind you, I was a SunOS4 sysadmin and SunOS4 was BSD based. Sun's documentation was worlds ahead of that of FreeBSD, whereas with Linux I didn't even need documentation.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[Bert64]

No reason they couldn't improve linux...

Many "bugs" in commercial software are actually just features which serve the purposes of the vendor and are contrary to the needs of the user.

Re:I'm surprised they're using outside product

[drinkypoo]

Add to that statement that Linux is also better for gaming on a technical level, just not a support level. Unless you are trying to use SLI (and why would you?*) there is no technical advantage to Windows.

* My PC is SLI right now, but never again, and I will probably take the second card out soon anyway just for power consumption reasons. I got one GTX 950 AMP! as a warranty replacement for a 750 Ti from Zotac and I bought another one, but it's been a PITA and if I went back in time and had it to do again I'd just sell the 950 and buy a 970.

Re: I'm surprised they're using outside product

[joao.cordeiro]

I don't think windows existence and usage is great for Linux to stay on the right track.
But I would definitely would like to see a open source alternative to Linux having a good share of market.
Linus runs Linux development with a iron fist. And because Linus has a good moral understanding about how Linux should proceed it stays on the track of being a good open source kernel.
But Linus won't live forever. One day his "dictatorship" will end.
Who will replace him? Who will say "No" when huge corporations try to commit crap into the mainstream?
If you are thinking about "democracy" and every contributer having a "vote" system, then all a "evil" corporation needs to do is place a huge number of contributers on the system. Where. They reach 51% they "own" the kernel.
"Yea, but we can fork it, being open source" -- Linux power future has little to do with the code and allot to do with controlling the standard. Companies like Intel or AMD or Realtek Will gladly follow a MS taken over kernel instead of changing to a forked release.

Just get over it, MS

[Alwin Henseler]

It's not just on Azure that Microsoft is embracing Linux.

Just make your next desktop OS (Windows XI ?) be a Linux based, MS ripped-from-somewhere GUI, and you're all set. No reason you couldn't include the usual spyware in such a system. Linux zealots would work hard to make such a desktop perform excellent across the widest choice of hardware options out there.

After that's said 'n done, Linux on Azure is just another day in the office.

Re:Just get over it, MS

[drinkypoo]

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.

What's after "Embrace, extend"?

[davidwr]

Remind me again, I forgot.

Where is the justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a way to prevent MS from using Linux after all the effort they put into thwarting it. (FUD, SCO lawsuit, etc.) They fact that they are making money from it now, does not seem right. Maybe now that they are adopting it (only because their customers demanded it), means this is the beginning of the end for Windows.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If Bill Gates were dead...

[Nutria]

he'd be rolling over in his grave.

This is great news, but dominate is a strong word

[Somervillain]

I hate to be a stickler for words, but "Slightly over half of Azure VMs are Linux" is not the traditional definition of dominate.

To be clear, I am a Linux user/lover - desktop and server. I'm happy Microsoft is making good money supporting Linux. It's just a slight majority is not what I would normally call domination.

Not surprised at all

[Somervillain]

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.

"Outside product" can be fuzzy

[MAXOMENOS]

Lest we forget: Microsoft contributes a lot of code to the kernel, mostly to make their products run better. So in a broad sense, Linux is part of Microsoft's own dog food.

This might seem incongruous -- it sure does to me! -- but I am reminded of something Vernard Martin said about Linux: its role isn't to beat Microsoft, but to keep Microsoft honest.

Azure is backwards

[Jerry]

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?

Re:Where is the money?

[MAXOMENOS]

So, if MS is ready to do this to Ubuntu - why haven't they done this with Red Hat?

Re:Poorly Made Argument

[Bert64]

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.