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

Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#141

Post by e12e »

mappu wrote: post #118
e12e wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's different this time? Running 64bit Linux elf binaries on the NT kernel, side-by-side with windows binaries is quite different from WSUS -- at least what experience I had with WSUS. It's more like Wine (a port of the win32 api to Linux (and BSD/OS X?) that allows running unmodified windows executables on Linux. Being able to "apt install redis" on windows, and get the redis-build that Ubuntu ships, and be abl…

WSUS is (conventionally) something different when talking about Microsoft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_Update_Services - whereas you clearly mean ${whatever Interix ended up renamed to}.

Yeah, according to Wikipedia, the abbriviation(s) I was looking for was: "Windows Services for UNIX (SFU)".

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#142

Post by sremani »

newjersey wrote: post #102
sremani wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no basis for arguing .net being behind Java, JVM or the ecosystem by 20 years. I am sure you are conflating the library advantage that Java has enjoyed. .Net is clearly going to give Java ecosystem fits in less than 5 years.

Oracle is clearly doing all it can to close the gap with all the FUD but it might not be enough to help .NET because for what it is worth in my opinion, Microsoft appears inconsistent. Are they betting the farm on Azure yet? Do they still see Windows as a profit center? Can they afford to give away developer tools for free as in free beer with no strings attached? Can they give away everything I'd need to run an Azur…

The first wave would involve enough tools for already .net projects to invade into Linux land. If this wave is not big, then Microsoft will have to try harder to convince Java devs to make the switch. But I am sure, there are many like my employer who make fintech products that with some work expand on to the Linux Server side very motivated to be part of the first wave.

More Java developers, I would be observing how many .Net shops expand their products and services to Linux.

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#143

Post by mlvljr »

UK-AL wrote: post #78
mlvljr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some comments from the times of the source code leak: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 I'd say, the user experience has improved since then overall (meaning the code quality, too, in one of the most practical senses).

Somebody did an actual anaysis of that leak, and the code was considered high quality overall. You get dodgy comments in the Linux kernel to.

I never said the Windows source was considered bad :)

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#144

Post by albasha »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #69
dantiberian wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the destructive legacies of Internet Explorer. Many web developers (including myself) got fed up with IE, and that rage transferred onto Microsoft.

They intentionally tried to destroy the web, because it didn't suit their monopoly. That rage was well and truly earned by Microsoft.

That's a bold claim. What's in it for Microsoft to build a shitty browser?

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#145

Post by Shorel »

buzzrobot wrote: post #137
Corrado wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, people say that Windows is a fine operating system, but I find it constantly annoying and terribly inefficient. Maybe it because I know there are other, better things, or maybe it's because I use it "incorrectly". As a desktop OS the GUI constantly annoys me with tiny little cuts; you can't manipulate file names properly as it disallows names starting with a period (among other things), the UI is terribly i…

The Windows desktop comes in last in any reasonable comparison with OS X and a modern desktop-oriented linux like Ubuntu or Mint. The focus on backwards compatibility means, among other things, Windows is carrying around multiple ways to render fonts. None of them deliver sufficient clarity. In Windows 10, Cleartype does not affect "Modern" apps. All the applications I use 90% of the time are available for Windows an…

I still remember the days when Linux font rendering was so subpar, that this comment of yours makes me very happy.

I long for the day we can say something similar about PC gaming.

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#146

Post by justinlardinois »

oblio wrote: post #74
justinlardinois wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They intentionally tried to destroy the web What are you referring to?

The web as envisioned early on by Netscape was supposed to have apps much sooner than it did. Once Microsoft swept aside Netscape by killing their business it basically froze development on IE. They made one mistake: XMLHttpRequest (probably the last big feature added to IE before the freeze) and we got lucky with Firefox.

I'm not sure Microsoft's lack of development on Internet Explorer in that era was due to an actual desire to kill the web. It simply had no competitors, so there was no motivation to make the product any better.

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#147

Post by justinlardinois »

cyphar wrote: post #131
rdtsc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good summary. Thanks. Yeah, I often see on HN (what are presume are younger developers) who never lived in a world were OSes, languages, frameworks, toolkits were not free. Everything cost a pretty penny. Open source software en-large would have been such an alien concept telling people it was going to be the future, they'd think it was crazy talk. Now it is taken for granted ... too much for granted perhaps. And the…

> Good summary. Thanks. > Yeah, I often see on HN (what are presume are younger developers) who never lived in a world were OSes, languages, frameworks, toolkits were not free. Everything cost a pretty penny. Open source software en-large would have been such an alien concept telling people it was going to be the future, they'd think it was crazy talk. Now it is taken for granted ... too much for granted perhaps. And…

> Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom

Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#148

Post by cyphar »

justinlardinois wrote: post #147
cyphar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good summary. Thanks. > Yeah, I often see on HN (what are presume are younger developers) who never lived in a world were OSes, languages, frameworks, toolkits were not free. Everything cost a pretty penny. Open source software en-large would have been such an alien concept telling people it was going to be the future, they'd think it was crazy talk. Now it is taken for granted ... too much for granted perhaps. And…

> Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.

> > Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom

> Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.

If you ever hear his explanation of why he used the GPL (which boils down to "I give you code, you give me code back, we're even"[1]) skips over the software freedom aspect. Not to mention that he's one of the advocates of the open source movement which doesn't have any views on software freedom.

I can't give you an explicit quote where he said "I don't care about software freedom", but it becomes quite clear if you look at his actions (particularly toward the GPLv3, where he clearly differentiates his views from the FSF's views[1] -- and he carefully avoids using the term "freedom").

There is a quote where he claims that vendor lock-in isn't morally bad[2], which is the best I could find after 10 minutes of searching:

> The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

[2]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043&w=4

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#149

Post by pritambaral »

albasha wrote: post #144
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They intentionally tried to destroy the web, because it didn't suit their monopoly. That rage was well and truly earned by Microsoft.

That's a bold claim. What's in it for Microsoft to build a shitty browser?

The less people use the web, the more they'll depend on the OS. Imagine if Facebook (or Slack) just had to build a native app for every OS they wanted users from, and there was no chance of using anything cross-platform to reach everyone. That would be the sweet utopia for the then Microsoft.

Making the dominant browser shitty is not identical to that scenario, but goes a long way in discouraging an OS-agnostic platform (the Web) in favour of their monopoly OS.

Re: Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft

#150

Post by deepnet »

cyphar wrote: post #148
justinlardinois wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.

> > Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom > Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made. If you ever hear his explanation of why he used the GPL (which boils down to "I give you code, you give me code back, we're even"[1]) skips over the software freedom aspect. Not to mention that he's one of the advocates of the open source…

Voluntary control & choice of control vendors, maybe.

But enforced monopolistic control - c'mon there is no freedom there.

Not to mention legally enforced monopolies destroy the market for everyone, including themselves.

Pretty much the 1st observation Adam Smith makes.

Without freedom and thus competition there is no progress, everything stagnates.

Music & film industry is a case in point, every change they lobby against turns out to be insanely profitable when they are forced into it. ( 78's, radio, videos, mp3 , streaming - all were going to 'kill' the industry till they didn't )

Fat cats won't change or innovate without competition.

Control abates all innovation.

Enforced control of your hardware is slavery.

Post reply on HN