91–100 of 112 posts
"On the Git front, their transitioning from Subversion to Git they hope to have a beta repository by the end of October." Their migration from Subversion to Git also provided the motive for the murder mystery book "git commit murder" by Michael W. Lucas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"
This. It's been MICROS~1's primary tactic against competitors for at least 1/3 of a century now and nothing has changed: now the company just _says_ it likes FOSS. Does Windows set up dual-boot if Linux is installed first? Naw. Does Windows read or write Linux filesystems? Naw. Has MS open-sourced any significant or important parts of Windows where it won't benefit directly? Naw. It is in MS' direct interests if Powe…
... you're fine with Google taking Linux, hiding it inside a proprietary system, not releasing source code for things people want to use like Google services?
> and servers and so on.
A use case where the most desirable setup is to have the Linux servers on someone else's computing platform, preferably in another state or country, with minimal services running on it, preferably locked behind an SSH interface that only an automation tool accesses guarded by an automated deployment tool, trading the "Linux can run for years without reboots" former gloating for being able to kill/redeploy dozens of times per day.
This is what counts as "popular" in 2020, Linux as a small piece of necessary plumbing that everyone wants to push away from human contact. A far cry from the dreams of Linspire, Ubuntu, Ubuntu-phone.
Microsoft make WSL pleasant to install and use, and now it's one of the most talked about ways to deal with Linux.
And you're pretending that what you really wanted was source code for Windows Explorer? Oh please. As if.
Much like WSL may be “eating” away at real Linux user-share, it will be interesting to see if enabling FreeBSD development outside FreeBSD itself will somehow affect the FreeBSD marketshare (for better or worse).
But this isn't FreeBSD development -at least not in the sense that you're creating FreeBSD apps in Linux. This is simply giving an alternative to downloading the isos. If you you need to verify that the source does what it says, now you can build it yourself on Linux.
As someone who dearly wishes they could make NetBSD apps on Linux (edit: I mean build pkgsrc packages for NetBSD on Linux) I don't see it being that much of a game changer -though it is a nice feature on a couple of different levels (being able to build a system on bare metal instead of in a vm, and the code being so portable it can be built in a foreign environment)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave up on FreeBSD on my hobby server after having have to maintain tiny differences all over for my ansible script and zshrc and whatnot. It just takes unnecessary effort to keep up with what just works for Linux and I didn't see much benefit sticking to FreeBSD.
For me this is the opposite, I use Linux on my laptop and FreeBSD on a hobby server. I find it easier to configure although I have much more experience with Linux. Things I don't link on Linux are systemd, pulseaudio, hundreds of packets managers that make it not always straight forward how to patch a package. What I like with FreeBSD is the slower pace of evolution, so there is less breaking change per unit of time,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It's been MICROS~1's primary tactic against competitors for at least 1/3 of a century now and nothing has changed: now the company just _says_ it likes FOSS. Does Windows set up dual-boot if Linux is installed first? Naw. Does Windows read or write Linux filesystems? Naw. Has MS open-sourced any significant or important parts of Windows where it won't benefit directly? Naw. It is in MS' direct interests if Powe…
> Linux is doing great on phones ... you're fine with Google taking Linux, hiding it inside a proprietary system, not releasing source code for things people want to use like Google services? > and servers and so on. A use case where the most desirable setup is to have the Linux servers on someone else's computing platform, preferably in another state or country, with minimal services running on it, preferably locked…
I am typing on Linux right now. I work for a Linux vendor. I like Linux and use it every day. I do not run Windows at all, anywhere, unless someone is paying me to.
As for Android, there is this thing called AOSP. Check it out. You might also wish to contribute to Replicant, since you are so passionate: https://replicant.us/
If you look hard enough on Google, you can probably find my (rather positive) reviews of Linspire from back when it was new. (It wasn't as good as Corel LinuxOS.) You'll also find me praising Ubuntu's efforts and bemoaning their cancellation.
Linux is anything but small; it is huge. It is what allows me to keep the lights on and put food and drink on my family's table.
MS executing its hallmark embrace-and-extend on it is _disastrous_ news and is one of the biggest dangers Linux has ever faced.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linux is doing great on phones ... you're fine with Google taking Linux, hiding it inside a proprietary system, not releasing source code for things people want to use like Google services? > and servers and so on. A use case where the most desirable setup is to have the Linux servers on someone else's computing platform, preferably in another state or country, with minimal services running on it, preferably locked…
Well done for signally failing to get a single point I made. Well up to HN commenter standards -- perhaps you'll make it on to https://twitter.com/hn_commenter I am typing on Linux right now. I work for a Linux vendor. I like Linux and use it every day. I do not run Windows at all, anywhere, unless someone is paying me to. As for Android, there is this thing called AOSP. Check it out. You might also wish to contribut…
> "As for Android, there is this thing called AOSP. Check it out."
It's what you get if you remove all the things people want, like Chrome and YouTube and drivers and Google store, and are left with just a kernel which nobody cares about. It's what manufacturers take, and put something nice but proprietary on top before it becomes desirable. (btw, if Android counts as a huge successful use of Linux, how is Microsoft adding a Linux VM option to Windows going to extinguish Android?)
> "MS executing its hallmark embrace-and-extend on it is _disastrous_ news"
It isn't news, WSL has been around for years, and before that the Unix subsystem for more years. And why are you afraid that Microsoft doing literally anything with Linux might lead to you running Windows? How is that going to happen?
> "Linux is anything but small; it is huge."
Then how is Microsoft adding a Linux VM option to Windows a "disaster"? Is it huge and doing great, or tenuous and barely holding on?
> "It is what allows me to keep the lights on and put food and drink on my family's table."
You just said you would use Windows if someone paid you. Linux being extinguished wouldn't stop you from earning. Not to mention the doublethink involved in how Linux can both "be extinguished" and still exist in Windows, or how Linux being used in Android, extended in proprietary ways, is great, but being used in Windows is not great.
Because it's just anti-Microsoft fearmongering, not anything which makes rational or reasonable sense.
EEE was about standard protocols; if Microsoft extend SMTP or HTML and everyone becomes dependent on their version, they could leverage that to kill Netscape. If Microsoft put a Linux VM in Windows, that doesn't change what happens on your server, on your phone, on your laptop. If people start developing for "Microsoft Linux" because it's /better/ because Microsoft builds things people want, that's called "competition".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What motive does MS have to "watch and stealthily attack" the FOSS world? Which parts of that world threaten their existence? Looking at the last few quarterly reports, I'm inclined to agree with the parent commenter here, and your comment doesn't do much to substantiate your point as it stands.
This is the motive, as someone cited before me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... I was merely agreeing. Look at MS' history. It used this tactic to kill or maim a long list of companies: Netscape, Lotus, WordPerfect, Aldus, Novell, Sybase, STAC, Central Point Software, Quarterdeck, and dozens more. It tried it with Sun and Java -- it failed, but only just. It tried it with the WWW itsel…
Netscape defunct 2003, FireFox still exists. Lotus 1-2-3 last release 2002. Sybase still existed until it was sold to SAP in 2010 and SAP killed it in 2014. WordPerfect still exists. Quarterdeck defunct 1998.
Sun, Java, ActiveX, ASP. 1990s.
Anything from this last decade? And, how is "this tactic" going to stop you from using Linux?
> "It has a long long history of being the nastiest, most deceitful, dishonest, back-stabbing company in the computer industry -- and that is saying a lot."
Cruelty, ruthlessness, and exploitation goes with success in capitalism.
> "TL;DR -- it spends just enough money that Gates & Buffett don't pay tax on the interest of their wealth; it does not do ethical investment of any kind; its objective is whitewashing the reputation of a retired criminal, in which it is very successful."
Character attack on a retired man, based on bad things which happened a generation ago, while giving free pass to Google who are strongarming the web with AMP and unilateral changes to Chrome, and unilateral standards which were proprietary Google internals released to the world, because they use Linux in their advertising-spyware mobile platform, and to Amazon, a much maligned company run by one of the current world's richest people, known for its mistreatment of employees and abusive attitude to the publishing industry, and for using its cloud platform to steal and reimplement popular services and put them out of business, free pass for current bad behaviour because they let people run Linux cheaply?