Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 192 posts

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

#151

Post by MaysonL »

npsimons wrote: post #85
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft is 10 years from death if it does not embrace Linux. FWIW, I remember people saying this in 1999 as well...

The IBM comparison is really apt. IBM hasn't died, they used to dominate like Microsoft, with all the same underhanded tactics, and they eventually came around. There's also the "culture wars" to consider, where many (myself included) revered IBM for superior alternatives (OS/2), while old timers would just shake their head at anyone trusting them. Now, I shake my head at anyone trusting Microsoft, although they've t…

I used to work with a guy who used to be the DP VP [what's called CIO these days] at the only Fortune 100 firm that didn't have a corporate IBM mainframe (although a subsidiary or two did, IIRC). IBM tried a number of times to get him fired (such tactics as golfing partners of the CEO saying that he was really incompetent, etc.). They played hardball, and probably still do, when they can.

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

#152

Post by gillianseed »

donatj wrote: post #143
caskance wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL is cancer, but in a good way.

I have misgivings about GPL. It's given me a lot, and I appreciate that, but while developing I won't use GPL libraries because I simply don't like being told what to do, and per the golden rule, I don't like telling people what to do, so I cannot with good moral standing release GPL code.

Well in the case of GPL, what you are not allowed to do is to use GPL licensed code with yours and decide not to give recipients of the resulting code the same rights that you were given.

I personally think that makes for a decent 'moral standing'.

Basically GPL only a problem if you want to create proprietary software, which in turn is typically very much a 'being told what you can do with said software' type of situation, with no code and often incorporating DRM mechanisms to prevent copying.

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

#154

Post by buffoon »

frik wrote: post #109
buffoon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's treated as a necessary evil. People are starting to realise that it's less necessary these days. Anecdotally, back a decade ago it was common to see a Windows 2000/2003/SBS box in even an SME environment being a fileserver/exchange/intranet/AD box. Now, I rarely see one. In fact they're declining even in large corps.

What do you use as replacement for Active Directory? Which OS do you deploy on thin clients (ChromeOS, Android, Ubuntu/RedHat Linux)?

AD replacement: oauth2 backed by a directory server (Azure AD / Google apps accounts)

Clients: anything really. The OS almost doesn't matter now.

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

#155

Post by dunham »

DanBC wrote: post #38
noir_lord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 35, started using Linux in '97 so I've been around for most of the history. It's quite amazing how Microsoft has changed in that time tbh from "Embrace, Extinguish, Extend" and all the shenanigans they pulled with comparing Win2k vs Linux/Samba and the halloween memo through to submitting code to the kernel, using Linux as a guest in their VM stuff and now using it internally not to mention making .Net a first cl…

MS used to really trash open source, with Ballmer calling GPL "cancer". (Although the company pulled back from that extreme). When MS took over Hotmail they got rid of FreeBSD that was running it. But MS have used Unix for years. They released MS IE for Unix. (The only person I know who ever used it was on HN.) Perhaps more bizarre was the Windows Media Player for Unix. Their TCP/IP stack was from BSD for ages (and p…

I downloaded and played with IE for Solaris, but I didn't use it for day to day browsing. One interesting thing that I recall from it was that it had .so files that corresponded to each of the windows DLLs. So it looked like they had some sort of framework for porting windows code to Unix.

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

#156

Post by belorn »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #144
robotresearcher wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a bad thing. Which is why cancer is not a good metaphor.

Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton of open source and open sources a ton of its own technology. Even for us, the GPL is poison. We're not allowed to touch GPL code. And we're not alone in this sentiment. A large number of open source enthusiasts decry the viral nature of the GPL, precisely beca…

If GPL is cancer for a company, then what then is proprietary licenses? nuclear bombs? Toxic waste? Ticking time bombs?

I don't think such language is nice. It is damaging to civil conversation and can only alienate people more. No one likes hearing that what they create is like toxic waste.

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

#157

Post by donatj »

Spivak wrote: post #148
donatj wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have misgivings about GPL. It's given me a lot, and I appreciate that, but while developing I won't use GPL libraries because I simply don't like being told what to do, and per the golden rule, I don't like telling people what to do, so I cannot with good moral standing release GPL code.

Libraries? Most of those are licensed under the LGPL precisely that reason.

The vast majority of my code is either in scripted uncompiled form, or statically linked. Wordpress implied a while back that using uncompiled GPL libraries made your code GPL. I'm no license expert, I'd rather just not risk it.

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

#158

Post by yuhong »

scholia wrote: post #98
npsimons wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IBM comparison is really apt. IBM hasn't died, they used to dominate like Microsoft, with all the same underhanded tactics, and they eventually came around. There's also the "culture wars" to consider, where many (myself included) revered IBM for superior alternatives (OS/2), while old timers would just shake their head at anyone trusting them. Now, I shake my head at anyone trusting Microsoft, although they've t…

IBM at its peak was much more dominant than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft -- thanks to IBM (via PC DOS and Basic) -- eventually became the IBM of software. But Intel became the IBM of processors, Cisco the IBM of routers, Google the IBM of the web, and so on. IBM was the IBM of everything. Incidentally, Microsoft co-developed OS/2 and there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- I…

Yea, this OS/2 2.0 fiasco used to my favorite topic, and I have plenty of bad things to say about MS's behavior there.

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

#159

Post by belorn »

Spivak wrote: post #149
Touche wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very likely a good thing, and part of the reason that Linux is doing well while BSDs have languished. You're mistaken if you believe that.

Hey, you're not wrong. Linus used the GPLv2 only because it allowed him to get patches back into the kernel. He's neither a fan of the FSF nor the GPLv3 because of their philosophy on software freedom. Linux is by far more popular for developers, tinkerers, and cool software projects but BSD is still massive in the server and embedded devices space.

Massive for servers?

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

BSD is a minority in servers, which also reflect my own experience talking with other sysadmins in conferences. Debian and Redhat are huge in the server market, outside of windows shops. Some older system might have novel or a BSD system running together with massive amount of legacy perl scripts, but those companies also complain that they have a hard time finding new employees that can support the old systems.

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

#160

Post by scholia »

yuhong wrote: post #158
scholia wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM at its peak was much more dominant than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft -- thanks to IBM (via PC DOS and Basic) -- eventually became the IBM of software. But Intel became the IBM of processors, Cisco the IBM of routers, Google the IBM of the web, and so on. IBM was the IBM of everything. Incidentally, Microsoft co-developed OS/2 and there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- I…

Yea, this OS/2 2.0 fiasco used to my favorite topic, and I have plenty of bad things to say about MS's behavior there.

Windows was selling well while OS/2 sales were, to quote Gates, "dismal", and Microsoft couldn't afford to support a failing project. (IBM may have had more programmers on OS/2 than Microsoft had programmers.)

Thanks to hiring Dave Cutler and staff from DEC, Microsoft could see a way out. However, IBM rejected the plan to move to NT as OS/2 3.0, and the two companies formally divorced. After that, IBM did its best to kill Microsoft. (One IBM senior manager told me: "We're going to burn Bill's butt.")

Bear in mind that in 1990, when Windows 3 came out, IBM had an annual turnover of $69 billion and Microsoft's turnover was $0.8 billion. It was a giant monopolist against a tiny start-up.

So, given the context, what was underhand about Microsoft's behavior, and what should it have done?

How did IBM's 1991 development of Workplace OS for PowerPC -- intended to cut both Microsoft and Intel out of the PC market -- fit into the strategy?

Post reply on HN