21–30 of 242 posts
No. Microsoft will buy Canonical for Ubuntu and that sweet, sweet developer mindshare. Ubuntu is the developer distro after all. Ubuntu will become Microsoft Linux.
Is this really realistic ? Why would Microsoft get into the Linux Enterprise market?
Azure integration
No. Microsoft will buy Canonical for Ubuntu and that sweet, sweet developer mindshare. Ubuntu is the developer distro after all. Ubuntu will become Microsoft Linux.
Is this really realistic ? Why would Microsoft get into the Linux Enterprise market?
Same reason they brought MSSQL to Linux.
> Microsoft Linux Man, what a time to be alive! Who would have thought it. Edit: who's extending, embracing and extinguishing now?!
No. Microsoft will buy Canonical for Ubuntu and that sweet, sweet developer mindshare. Ubuntu is the developer distro after all. Ubuntu will become Microsoft Linux.
Is this really realistic ? Why would Microsoft get into the Linux Enterprise market?
No. Microsoft will buy Canonical for Ubuntu and that sweet, sweet developer mindshare. Ubuntu is the developer distro after all. Ubuntu will become Microsoft Linux.
Is this really realistic ? Why would Microsoft get into the Linux Enterprise market?
Imagine writing Linux From Scratch and someone from Microsoft reads it and uses it to make a Linux distribution that goes on to power dozens of that trillion-dollar company's products. To be clear, I'm not saying that "you should be outraged," necessarily. It's just an interesting thing.
Why doesn’t MS use Server Core? If they don’t why would anyone use Server at all? Is AD even worthwhile anymore for a new company?
Probably but Samba already does AD so you don't need Microsoft to do it. I guess PolKit at some point may offer similar functionality as group policy.
Makes me think of Eric S. Raymond's erotic fanfic: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8764 If this is going to be a desktop offering from Microsoft, I think it will be for remote cloud and potentially WSL2 use only. The future of desktop Linux is a VM under Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment made me LOL. Thank you, that's pretty funny. I was curious if this was a saying I'd never heard of or if you just came up with it. Seems you just came up with this? What's amazing is that Google already has this HN post indexed and you're already the first hit for the phrase. And even weirder, Google says that they (currently) indexed it 56 minutes ago, when HN reports you posted it 23 minutes ago. Googl…
> even weirder, Google says that they (currently) indexed it 56 minutes ago, when HN reports you posted it 23 minutes ago. Google is now apparently predicting the future 33 minutes in advance. One interpretation is that Google is lying about the indexing time. But it seems more likely in this case that they're reporting the indexing time of the page they link to ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33458756 ), rath…
> Google determines a date using a variety of factors, including but not limited to: any prominent date listed on the page itself or dates provided by the publisher through structured markup.
> Google doesn't depend on one single factor because all of them can be prone to issues. Publishers may not always provide a clear visible date. Sometimes, structured data may be lacking or may not be adjusted to the correct time zone. That's why our systems look at several factors to come up with what we consider to be our best estimate of when a page was published or significantly updated.
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/03/help-googl...