Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

theregister.co.uk

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#131

Ah, how wonderful it will be to live in a world without embrace and extend. Wait. systemd, kdbus, GNOME and systemd-udevd. Shit. We have met the enemy, and befriended it. Now we are the enemy.

I know you're being downvoted, but I spent the better part of today dealing with a Linux Mint Debian Edition (Jessie) install that decided to install systemd in an update. the original install had no systemd. I explicitly installed sysvinit in order to purge it fully. Today's apt-get dist-upgrade (and reboot to newer kernel) brought me this unwelcome surprise.

Therefore, I made today the day I officially switched my last debian system over to Devuan[0], which was easier than I imagined. No more systemd, or packages depending on it.

0. https://devuan.org/

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - it's good to be cautious - but, Microsoft's approach toward E/E/E was rational (if slightly evil), when they were trying to control the platform . But now, they are trying to control the service/data, in which case the cloud-API (theirs, preferably) is what they want everyone to buy into. In that model, they deploy completely proprietary service interfaces (similar to what Amazon does with AWS, stripe with t…

Oh, we're already seeing ahem Skype ahem . Is that not MS? Is that not Linux? Is that not seriously user-hostile? (Ohbutthat'ssomethingcompletelydifferent. Right?)

Skype works fine on IOS, Mac, Windows(obv), and Android as well.

The number of people who run linux on their desktop is probably on the same order as those who run BlackBerry - neither one of which has enough market presence to make it worth writing/maintaining apps for them. I'm pretty sure Skype isn't available from MS on OpenBSD either. (And, honestly, pretty soon, I wouldn't be shocked if Windows Phone doesn't get the same care and attention that IOS does).

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#133
post #130
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that actually mean, though? It can't affect the software being distributed. Is it only the distro tools themselves?

The actual collection of software called the distribution. That's what is being licensed.

But most of that software will be licensed under other licenses, and you can't just redistribute it under another license!

If you ship a collection of software called a "distribution" that includes a copy of the Linux kernel, then that copy of the kernel remains GPL. The fact that it's on the same CD or server as some other MIT-licensed software is irrelevant.

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#134
post #45

I imagine anything Microsoft releases that could possibly have gpl software, such as the linux kernel in it will have the most aggressive search for violation of any software ever. Memories are long and that distrust is not going away any time soon.

Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 already contains GPL software:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/micros... https://libgit2.github.com/

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#135
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pondered this for a bit wondering what the Microsoft equivalent of systemd is, and decided it's probably svchost: it runs a bunch of services on your behalf in an opaque way, and occasionally needs killing when it eats all your memory. Microsoft already have binary logging that's much harder to read than text files. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to process reaping, or whether that's handled by the kernel.

Microsoft's equivalent is called "wininit" and spawns services (inc. svchost shared process groups and services.exe), lsass ("Local Security Authority Subsystem Service"), lsm ("Local Session Manager"), winlogon ("Windows Login subsystem" for session 0), initialises the registry, creates temp if it doesn't exist, etc. During shutdown after winlogon terminates (session 0 terminates), wininit then sends ExitWindowsEx()…

> The two really are 1:1. Windows under the hood is VERY UNIX like. More so than most people realise.

I find this really amusing. I've been reading "Showstopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft"[1] and Dave Cutler is described as VERY anti-Unix. He considered it an inelegant system developed by a bunch of PhDs doing their own thing their own way.

He'd probably hate your comparison.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Showstopper-Breakneck-Windows-Generati...

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#136
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... and the OS places no copyleft restrictions! I'm still baffled why people think this is a benefit. If you actually care about software freedom, lack of copyleft is a bad thing IMO. What's to stop $EvilCorp from creating a system that is completely locked down, can't be replaced, and is based on your technology? That's what UEFI is, by the way. It's only by Microsoft's blessing that you can install alternative op…

FYI, the TianoCore FAT driver is actually non-free thanks to Microsoft.

Actually, Microsoft has provided a patent grant[1][2][3] to anybody who implements a FAT driver for the purpose of booting UEFI. Which is actually a reason why FAT is still in the Linux kernel even though people argue that Microsoft will sue one day.

But IMO we should be all switching to CoreBoot (or LibreBoot). It's much less fucked up than UEFI, the only negative being that you have to flash it yourself (unless you buy a $1000 5-year-old Thinkpad).

[1]: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4...

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#137
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, the TianoCore FAT driver is actually non-free thanks to Microsoft.

Actually, Microsoft has provided a patent grant[1][2][3] to anybody who implements a FAT driver for the purpose of booting UEFI. Which is actually a reason why FAT is still in the Linux kernel even though people argue that Microsoft will sue one day. But IMO we should be all switching to CoreBoot (or LibreBoot). It's much less fucked up than UEFI, the only negative being that you have to flash it yourself (unless you…

They are still responsible for the non-free license on the TianoCore; Intel are having to negotiate with Microsoft to change the license, despite being the copyright holder.

Agreed re not using UEFI. I wouldn't touch CoreBoot though, LibreBoot seems more sane.

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#138
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pondered this for a bit wondering what the Microsoft equivalent of systemd is, and decided it's probably svchost: it runs a bunch of services on your behalf in an opaque way, and occasionally needs killing when it eats all your memory. Microsoft already have binary logging that's much harder to read than text files. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to process reaping, or whether that's handled by the kernel.

Microsoft's equivalent is called "wininit" and spawns services (inc. svchost shared process groups and services.exe), lsass ("Local Security Authority Subsystem Service"), lsm ("Local Session Manager"), winlogon ("Windows Login subsystem" for session 0), initialises the registry, creates temp if it doesn't exist, etc. During shutdown after winlogon terminates (session 0 terminates), wininit then sends ExitWindowsEx()…

> Windows under the hood is VERY UNIX like.

That's a comparison that comes with a lot of caveats. The timeline of Windows NT versus things like the IBM System Resource Controller and the Solaris Service Management Facility is one such. Another is that it really depends from which Unix; even setting aside the fact that systemd only runs on Linux, not Unix. There are some significant structural differences, moreover.

* On AIX, the program that runs as process #1 is init, processing inittab and handling runlevels. Service management is done by another program (srcmstr) running as a separate process; which client programs send commands to via /dev/SRC, a local domain socket. Terminal login is not considered to be a service to be managed as other services are, and is spawned by init not by the SRC.

* On Solaris, there is an init program that runs as process #1, handling runlevels. The SMF master restarter (svc.startd) and configuration manager (svc.configd) programs run as separate processes; instructed by client programs such as svcadm and svccfg. Terminal login (as of Solaris 11) is considered to be just another service managed by the SMF, an instance of svc:/system/console per terminal.

* On Linux or FreeBSD/PC-BSD running nosh, there is a system-manager program that runs as process #1, handling system state. A service-manager to supervise services runs as a separate process. Commands such as service-control and system-control communicate with with them via FIFOs and files in the filesystem. Terminal login is considered to be just another service managed by the service manager, one ttylogin@ttyN service per terminal.

However:

* On Windows NT, the first user process runs the Session Manager program (SMSS.EXE). Services are managed by another process running the Service Controller (SERVICES.EXE). Client programs send commands to the Service Controller and to the Session Manager using "Native API" LPC; the former to manage the supervision of services and the latter to do things that don't really have a Unix/Linux equivalent like turn on the POSIX subsystem in a session. Terminal login is not managed by either the service manager or the system manager, but by the WINLOGON and Local Session Manager programs, and is not treated as anything like a service.

Furthermore:

* On Linux running systemd, there isn't the dichotomy as in the aforementioned systems. System and service management are both done in one program, running as process #1, not in two separate ones. There isn't one direct control/status API, either. The process #1 program exports a Desktop Bus interface, which requires that a Desktop Bus manager daemon be running. To avoid the chicken-and-egg problem that results (since the Desktop Bus daemon is a service that is managed by the process #1 program), there's a separate, private and intentionally undocumented, "bus" API directly to the process #1 program. This is "known" only to the systemctl program. There's also a handshake between the process #1 program and the Desktop Bus manager daemon, activated by its largely undocumented --systemd-activation option, whereby the latter tells the former when there's a Desktop Bus for it to register its API with. Terminal login is a service managed by the mixed-together service/system manager, an instance of the autovt@.service service per terminal, with activation of these terminal login services controlled by another service, systemd-logind.

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#139
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Microsoft has provided a patent grant[1][2][3] to anybody who implements a FAT driver for the purpose of booting UEFI. Which is actually a reason why FAT is still in the Linux kernel even though people argue that Microsoft will sue one day. But IMO we should be all switching to CoreBoot (or LibreBoot). It's much less fucked up than UEFI, the only negative being that you have to flash it yourself (unless you…

They are still responsible for the non-free license on the TianoCore; Intel are having to negotiate with Microsoft to change the license, despite being the copyright holder. Agreed re not using UEFI. I wouldn't touch CoreBoot though, LibreBoot seems more sane.

LibreBoot is CoreBoot with certain binary blobs removed. Sure, I agree that LibreBoot is better from a freedom perspective, I just assumed that you wouldn't know what LibreBoot is (more people have heard of CoreBoot).

Re: Microsoft will release a custom Debian Linux

#140
post #133
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual collection of software called the distribution. That's what is being licensed.

But most of that software will be licensed under other licenses, and you can't just redistribute it under another license! If you ship a collection of software called a "distribution" that includes a copy of the Linux kernel, then that copy of the kernel remains GPL. The fact that it's on the same CD or server as some other MIT-licensed software is irrelevant.

A collective work is separate from a derived work. These are two separate things in copyright law. You can own the copyright over a library of music, despite not owning the copyright over the actual music itself. So, you could have a proprietary Linux distribution that is only made up of GPL'd software. The only thing that would be "proprietary" is the particular configuration, selection and build scripts of the packages that you picked.

So, having a GPL'd distribution means that the package sources and configurations and other such "distribution sources" have to follow the rules of the GPL. It doesn't matter what the license of the software itself is (it can even be GPL-incompatible or proprietary).

Post reply on HN