Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

linuxfoundation.org

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#91
post #90
post #20

Apparently, being a platinum member entails donating $500k [1], so it's not that big a deal for Microsoft ($85B revenue[2]). And as the article states, there has been negativity in the linux community regarding the old arch-enemy joining their ranks. Looking at the new Microsoft however, I think it's fair to assume that the days of "embrace, extend and extinguish"[3] are over and they are genuinely interested in coop…

I get the impression that he wants to leave the cloud to linux and try to position Windows as a user-facing client. Is that why they're pushing the Azure cloud service - to benefit Linux?

Considering 50% of Azure instances are Linux, perhaps?

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#92
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is a kernel, not an OS, and Microsoft has been abjectly hostile to the OSes that use Linux and respect user freedoms. If they weren't, they would have never pushed hostile proprietary vendor lock in tech like DirectX12 or Universal Windows Platform in recent years.

(1) That's hair splitting of common usage. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux "Linux was originally developed as a free operating system for personal computers based on the Intel x86 architecture" "Linux has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems." "Linux is not the only such operating system" "Linux is also the leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems" I'm…

> (1) That's hair splitting of common usage.

The operating system's technical name is GNU/Linux[1]. Many people call it Linux incorrectly, but it is actually a serious distinction[2]. I would agree however that Linux is the most widely used OS kernel.

To make the distinction more obvious, can you explain what the difference is between "Linux" and Android (which uses the Linux kernel). [ Hint: the difference is that Android doesn't contain GNU. ]

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#93
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft loves Linux (the kernel), but they hate with passion anything userland that could ever have the dreaded "GNU" or "GPL" letters anywhere mentioned.

Isn't WSL Linux userland running on NT Kernel? Just the opposite of what you said? Sorry if I said something silly :)

WSL is an implementation of (some of) the Linux kernel APIs on top of the Windows kernel. The userland that you run in WSL is technically independent of WSL itself, but Microsoft provides direct support for installing Ubuntu there.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS employee here - the new Microsoft is: Enable (make sure open source runs well on MS platforms) Integrate (make sure MS platforms work well with open source) Release (release key MS technology into open source) Participate (commit MS engineers to participate in communities)

Nice of you to say but what about this: https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/10/thats-it-ive-had-eno... Obviously Kaspersky isn't open source, but the tiger's stripes certainly haven't changed. Also, Microsoft bundling Windows 10 upgrade malware into its security update channel has turned me off Microsoft, probably forever. Still don't understand why installing 10 after being told not to isn't a CFAA violation.

Kaspersky's claims that Microsoft doesn't give them enough time to ensure their software is compatible doesn't really ring true for me, because between the Release Preview, Slow, and Fast rings, people can get their hands on Microsoft OS versions long in advance of Microsoft pushing them out to consumers.

Having a limit on the number of antivirus products a computer has makes sense, antivirus software often causes conflicts with other antivirus software, and a large amount of security software on a PC causes it to run very slowly, as duplicated scanning efforts take up a majority of drive performance on the slow 5400 rpm hard drives shipped with most consumer PCs today.

To be clear: Antivirus companies have acted like a plague on Windows computers for a long time. They use scare tactics to convince people to spend money on placebo-effect tools that rarely protect them from the type of malware they actually are likely to encounter.

One of the favored strategies is to bundle on new PCs with a short trial, and then tell people they won't be protected unless they subscribe. People aren't told that if they just remove the third party product that was preinstalled on their PC, they'll have perfectly serviceable antivirus.

That isn't to say Windows 10 doesn't have issues that still bother me, but let's just say that Kaspersky crying about them doesn't bother me much.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#96
post #20

Apparently, being a platinum member entails donating $500k [1], so it's not that big a deal for Microsoft ($85B revenue[2]). And as the article states, there has been negativity in the linux community regarding the old arch-enemy joining their ranks. Looking at the new Microsoft however, I think it's fair to assume that the days of "embrace, extend and extinguish"[3] are over and they are genuinely interested in coop…

Reading your comment, I was suddenly reminded of the days when the Windows vs. Linux TCO (=total cost of ownership) debacle was all aflame... ah the sad irony.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#97
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice of you to say but what about this: https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/10/thats-it-ive-had-eno... Obviously Kaspersky isn't open source, but the tiger's stripes certainly haven't changed. Also, Microsoft bundling Windows 10 upgrade malware into its security update channel has turned me off Microsoft, probably forever. Still don't understand why installing 10 after being told not to isn't a CFAA violation.

Kaspersky and all of the AV vendors deserve to get wiped out.

I'd like to know why you think that, and also if you think that W10's unstoppable updates is the right way.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#98
post #19
post #11

I don't think they are going to support GPLv3, ever.

FWIW, the same could be said for the Linux foundation. They're not really pro GPLv3 either. Linux is GPLv2 and will stay that way. Open Source != Free Software

And note that many of the new Linux Foundation projects (kubernetes, runc, etc) are under Apache licenses.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#99
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being a platinum member entails donating $500k HP's donation isn't necessary Microsoft's > so it's not that big a deal for Microsoft So what? It's a big deal for the Linux Foundation. And that's what matters. It's not about everyone paying "their fair share". It's about ensuring a good future for the high-quality very popular open source OS Linux. The circumstances of the donor doesn't affect the efficacy of their…

Linux is a kernel, not an OS, and Microsoft has been abjectly hostile to the OSes that use Linux and respect user freedoms. If they weren't, they would have never pushed hostile proprietary vendor lock in tech like DirectX12 or Universal Windows Platform in recent years.

So Redhat is hostile towards Linux too then, right? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't push their competing products against Canonical or Suse.

Just because companies release competing, incompatible products, doesn't mean they're "hostile" towards one another.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Linux Foundation Platinum Member

#100
post #34
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't see how that strategy would work with open source projects. Wouldn't most contributions for the "extend" phase be open source? Once open source, it's much harder to extinguish.

Open source means nothing and is same easy to extinguish, it's only more visible when someone is trying to. Microsoft, Google, Apple do open source work for publicity, if you as a single developer want a change in a projects, you submit PR... and wait weeks. First you need to write RFC, at some point RFC will be discussed behind closed doors by corporatisation members, you can have your vote in it on GitHub, but noth…

So have you ever contributed to OSS projects by these companies? I ask because what you've described is definitely not the case from what I can see.
Post reply on HN