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

exFAT in the Linux kernel

cloudblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 280 posts

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#251

Post by alexeldeib »

wildfire wrote: post #248
tw04 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Microsoft is a for-profit company, what's the financial justification for writing office for Linux on desktop? The market share isn't even a rounding error and you're talking about them investing tens of millions minimum into the development. The fact they have office on Android, iOS, and osx proves it's about market share and common sense, not some fabricated hatred or fear of Linux on the desktop.

> you're talking about them > investing tens of millions > minimum into the development Do you have a source for this hyperbole??

That’s what, a few dozen devs and infrastructure, probably? Not at all outlandish.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#252

Post by bdcravens »

msftlvslicnsing wrote: post #96
GordonS wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's pretty unfair - Microsoft has changed enormously in the past 5 years.

VSCode, exFat, and .Net core are not enormous. Their revenue streams are enormous and remain as close to their chest as ever.

Microsoft SQL Server on Linux indeed has enormous licensing costs.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#253

Post by RaleyField »

vetinari wrote: post #244
RaleyField wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end, these devices do ship with Windows, which has privacy problems anyway. It does, but those are "theoretical" in comparison to the degree Lenovo stooped on, it doesn't excuse Superfish at all. Windows isn't a free for all platform, yet. > All this is moot, when you put Linux on it, which was the context we were talking about. _That_ time. I'll copy a response I provided two months ago as Lenovo on HN has…

Every single company did stupid things in the past (not just CE/ITC companies; but the builder that built your house too, for example). You can be outraged by many things all of them did. By choosing, what you are or are not outraged, you are just rationalizing your preferences. Was superfish stupid mistake? Yes, it was. Does it mean you should condemn the company for the rest of eternity? Probably not.

> Every single company did stupid things in the past

Perhaps there is some boundary that shouldn't be crossed. You seem to be arguing there isn't.

Perhaps global and successful companies should exercise some due diligence and have a department that would control quality and firewall wacky ideas.

Perhaps we as CEs should hold companies responsible so that they stop perpetuating never ending shenanigans that this industry is known for. If even we don't boycott bad actors how can we expect normal users to do it.

> Does it mean you should condemn the company for the rest of eternity? Probably not.

If they showed some contrition perhaps? Name and fire entire chain of people responsible for it and donate a year of their net income to foreign FOSS organizations - in ideal world the company should've gone bankrupt, so the penance should be hard. Then I'd be more ready to believe them they would do better in the future.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#254

Post by philwelch »

rumanator wrote: post #197
philwelch wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is a kernel, it’s not a way of life. Chromebook and Android users are Linux users. People who use web applications that run on Linux servers are Linux users. Developers who use Vagrant or Docker on Mac OS, or Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows, are Linux users. Microsoft may or may not “love” the tiny subset of users who run Linux-based desktops and are unwilling to use web applications. But that doesn’t me…

> Linux is a kernel, it’s not a way of life. You're being disingenuous. Linux users are users of Linux and software that runs on Linux. In the context of service deployment, this clearly refers to users who need to deploy Linux VMs to run software that runs on Linux. The kernel is irrelevant. This use case clearly refers to Linux distributions, which nowadays probably means Debian or a Debian-based distro. So obvious…

> Linux users are users of Linux and software that runs on Linux.

That's exactly the point I was making. People who run Debian-based desktops are a tiny subset of that group. Hell, I have a Linux desktop and not even I run Debian.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#255

Post by GordonS »

msftlvslicnsing wrote: post #96
GordonS wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's pretty unfair - Microsoft has changed enormously in the past 5 years.

VSCode, exFat, and .Net core are not enormous. Their revenue streams are enormous and remain as close to their chest as ever.

I disagree - VSCode has an enormous user base, and .NET Core is a huge deal. They even open sourced the serverless engine from Azure's Function Apps!

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#256

Post by acd »

Thanks Microsoft and the developers there for sharing ExFat!

It is great to see the changed attitude and embracing of open source software! This will ease the use of large external disks, sharing files between Windows and Linux systems. It will help with larger USB memory sticks which no longer needs to be reformatted. It will also make it much easier to deal with SD cards from cameras and mobile phones.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#257

Post by kragen »

naner wrote: post #160
jdsully wrote: post #4

The big deal here is the patent grant. FAT related patents were held over linux like a gun in the Ballmer years. Its a reason Linux was stuck with 8.3 length filenames for so long.

They fired the gun. Linux had to rework the FAT32 implementation in the kernel when TomTom got sued for not paying the Microsoft tax and lost.

TomTom didn't lose; they capitulated.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#258

Post by [deleted] »

jaboutboul wrote: post #71
mda wrote: post #64

So after abusing this bullshit for more than a decade to bully companies. How gracious and generous of them. Oh btw, Satya is the CEO for 5 years.

Stop shitting on them. We won the war. They’re mending their ways. It takes a long time to right such a large ship with levels upon levels of bureaucratic bullshit that’s been caked on for decades. It’s a WIP and they just granted a patent license to the OIN for fuck’s sake. Even 10 years ago this would have sounded like science fiction.

[deleted]

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#259

Post by msftlvslicnsing »

GordonS wrote: post #255
msftlvslicnsing wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VSCode, exFat, and .Net core are not enormous. Their revenue streams are enormous and remain as close to their chest as ever.

I disagree - VSCode has an enormous user base, and .NET Core is a huge deal. They even open sourced the serverless engine from Azure's Function Apps!

All that withstanding, nobody but developers buy Microsoft products because of VSCode.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#260

Post by msftlvslicnsing »

immigrantsheep wrote: post #134
msftlvslicnsing wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VSCode, exFat, and .Net core are not enormous. Their revenue streams are enormous and remain as close to their chest as ever.

So they should start losing money? Should Google? Should Apple? I don't get this argument. And .Net Core being open source is enormous if you use it.

>So they should start losing money?

I was unclear; their revenue streams are still overwhelmingly comprised of proprietary tech.

Darwin and AOSP are massive compared to the toys MSFT is throwing over the Linux wall. This idea that they need to lose money is a strawman.

Post reply on HN