Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

theregister.co.uk

11–20 of 192 posts

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#11
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

Heavy Windows server user here. We have 100+ windows server 2008 R2 and 2012 R2 machines in production and a massive .Net/C# codebase.

Currently it's a complete bastard of an operating system. It's expensive, hard to manage even with powershell and DSC etc, difficult to update, difficult to provision, complicated and to be honest absolutely terrible licensing hell that costs us days a year. Hyper-V just adds complexity before anyone suggests that.

Exchange on-site deployments are dead. Everyone is moving away from them now and into Office 365 and Google Apps. There is no rational cost justification to use anything else now. Even the big orgs (5000+ staff) are moving off it as it's cheaper to get a fat pipe in than it is to keep 2-3 windows admins and a pile of kit and a SAN on the payroll just to run groupware.

Biztalk is also dead and has been for a few years. People who were using it heavily seem to be holding onto it due to cost reasons and everyone else who has been using it and have done any platform re-engineering have moved off to Windows Server AppFabric, NServiceBus and custom integrations or to AWS/SQS.

Microsoft are pushing Windows Server 2016 with container support as the up and coming new thing. I'm really not interested in this myself. I don't think anyone else is either other than a select number of core windows bloggers. It's simply a "me too" move.

As we re-engineer our application, what our endgame currently looks like is deploying disposable Linux VMs (CentOS) on AWS running ASP.Net 5/golang, microservices, lots of small PostgreSQL nodes (RDS) rather than massive 48 core SQL Server boxes, using OAuth2/OpenID authentication and getting rid of our extensive operations team who are incidentally more of an obstruction than an aid to the organisation.

IMHO Windows Server is probably circling the drain. There are very few places it fits in a modern business and this is only going to get worse going forth as well.

The remaining killer is Active Directory but you can already get Microsoft to deal with that for you on Azure, pre-integrated with Office 365 and sharepoint etc.

Microsoft I suspect will end up a services company like Google with some hardware being sold on the side. And you know what? That's fine.

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#12
post #10
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imho, if Active Directory/ADAM ran on Linux demand for Windows Server would drop considerably. However Windows Server is also used to deliver Citrix-style remote desktops (using App Virtualization[1]) and that would be harder to replace. Also, SQL Server and Exchange use plenty of Windows-specific OS features -- it wouldn't be impossible to port to Linux but it would be a lot of work. [1] https://technet.microsoft.co…

Add Sharepoint (Microsoft's true cash cow[1]) to that list of yours and, yep, Windows definitely isn't going away. [1]: http://www.tannerhelland.com/4993/microsoft-money-updated-20...

AD, Sharepoint, Office 365 is already canned in Azure/O365.

You won't be buying a Windows Server license to run them any more and it's feasible that they may even not run on Windows at some point in the future. Office's server portion and Sharepoint is all .Net so expect them to move it to ASP.Net 5 at some point.

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#13
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

I'm currently in my first nix job after years with Windows. It's a larger company (15k+ people) and using RedHat for it's linux solution (solaris/aix is also present). Honestly, I don't understand the $$$ argument at the enterprise level against msoft. Not only are you paying Redhat for support but their RPMs are about a year behind what's out there (that's a lot of time!). I'm trying to get .net (coreclr) compiled now on RHEL to play around but having a heck of a time b/c of all the old packages (btw- if anyone has instructions for this, __PLEASE__ send along).

Are other nix shops using Ubuntu for their servers?

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#15
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

As an hybrid kernel, able to do asynchronous IO better than open source UNIX clones, adoption of C++ instead of bare bones unsafe C and an OOP ABI (COM), I look forward to the existence of Windows as server OS.

There are lots of MS only shops out there and I don't see any of the changing in the near future.

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#16
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

I'm currently in my first nix job after years with Windows. It's a larger company (15k+ people) and using RedHat for it's linux solution (solaris/aix is also present). Honestly, I don't understand the $$$ argument at the enterprise level against msoft. Not only are you paying Redhat for support but their RPMs are about a year behind what's out there (that's a lot of time!). I'm trying to get .net (coreclr) compiled n…

Lot's of Shops use Ubuntu, yes. However you could also use CentOS or Fedora to be more flexible then with RedHat, especially when it comes to costs. 'Mostly' you don't need the Enterprise support, however without any paying for it we won't have Fedora / CentOS in the future. ;)

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#17
post #7
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

imho, if Active Directory/ADAM ran on Linux demand for Windows Server would drop considerably. However Windows Server is also used to deliver Citrix-style remote desktops (using App Virtualization[1]) and that would be harder to replace. Also, SQL Server and Exchange use plenty of Windows-specific OS features -- it wouldn't be impossible to port to Linux but it would be a lot of work. [1] https://technet.microsoft.co…

Actually Active Directory already ran on Linux. Samba4 has support for AD up to 2008 R2. Currently I don't think ADAM is builtin yet, but SAMBA4 is already in a good state, however it still misses a good GUI, (you need a MS OS to configure some stuff, like GPO)

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#18
post #3

People forget that MS used to have it's own Unix in the 80s: Xenix. I ported a large DEC PDP Fortran codebase to run on Xenix back then - it was far too big to fit in the 640K DOS limit. Writing the Xenix device driver for the 68000 powered graphics card in the PC was fun.

There was even some Unix in Windows itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#19
post #15
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

As an hybrid kernel, able to do asynchronous IO better than open source UNIX clones, adoption of C++ instead of bare bones unsafe C and an OOP ABI (COM), I look forward to the existence of Windows as server OS. There are lots of MS only shops out there and I don't see any of the changing in the near future.

When I first saw a whole stack of low latency C++ Win32 based servers running on Windows supporting an interest rate trading business back in 2004 I was amazed. Talarian SmartSockets was used for interprocess pub/sub between servers. There was no COM. No thread pools, just a handful of threads in each process executing distinct code. Very clean async design. Back then Linux didn't have lightweight threads, IIRC. I think this is the kind of thing Windows Nano might support. Is that what you had in mind when you look forward to Windows as a server OS?

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

#20
post #15
post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

As an hybrid kernel, able to do asynchronous IO better than open source UNIX clones, adoption of C++ instead of bare bones unsafe C and an OOP ABI (COM), I look forward to the existence of Windows as server OS. There are lots of MS only shops out there and I don't see any of the changing in the near future.

>As an hybrid kernel

I must ask, what exactly makes the current NT kernel a 'hybrid' kernel ?

Post reply on HN