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

Microsoft and Red Hat partner

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 177 posts

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#72

Post by toyg »

lloydde wrote: post #25
frik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2006 we had a similar headline. Microsoft partnered with Novell (SuSE Linux), and there was no happy end for one of them (Novell is no more; SuSE Linux once a major distribution next to RedHat is a shadow of its former self). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsof...

Worked out well for Xamarin. Also, it seems to me that SUSE is still in good shape, but didn't continued to grow like RedHat.

> Worked out well for Xamarin

Only for them. Novell bet big on pivoting on Linux and then crashed.

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#73

Post by outside1234 »

technofiend wrote: post #28

I think this is just ticking a box for Microsoft since I believe you can get RH on AWS. But let's be honest - how many people will perceive any value in stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? Sure if you already have a .NET app, hosting it in UNIX may give you some benefit. But is anyone really going to write an app from scratch with this in mind? I'm skeptical.

The idea is not to run .NET on Red Hat. Its to run anything on top of Red Hat on Azure. Azure is far bigger than just Microsoft's stack.

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#74

Post by apalmer »

mercurial wrote: post #58
adrianlmm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would, .NET and the latest C# is awesome and superior to other frameworks, so yes, the fact that can run in Linux is something very atractive.

C# is a decent language if you like imperative programing. .NET MVC, though, is far from impressive. The routing is crap, Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views, and in general it feels like a "let's do Rails in C#", which I really don't see as the future of web development.

C# and .Net the framework is objectively 'good'.

ASP.Net MVC, is very subjective. It definitely is very 'weird' from the perspective of being on a static language platform but embracing 'magic' over standard type safety.

I will give you routing though, i dont really think it 'sucks' but i have lead development teams using MVC for years... whenever a new developer who isnt familiar comes on board, the most significant 'learning curve' is the routing... i am not really a fan myself but i understand what the value proposition is...

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#75

Post by outside1234 »

thebouv wrote: post #8

I'm not fooling myself into seeing this as anything but a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" setup. RedHat is getting a ton out of this, and so is Microsoft. Who's the main target for Azure? Enterprise companies who trust Microsoft implicitly. When an exec comes to the head of IT and says "we need to be on the cloud! I read about it!", Azure eases the transition by being able to go to vendor you've already bee…

Yup - its good for both - which is what is fantastic about Microsoft's new direction.

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#76

Post by davidgerard »

diakritikal wrote: post #17

In the last 5 years we've experimented with Linux on top of hyper-v a few times. The basic I/O, compile & runtime performance was significantly inferior to xen & kvm (didn't bench against vmware, phasing it out due to cost), it wasn't worth any effort to even deploy apps for testing. Therefore I don't see Linux on hyper-v being a compelling option for the cost conscientious technical officer or lead engineer.

Main problem with Hyper-V: getting into the admin console with anything but IE. Yes, really.

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#77

Post by stronglikedan »

Someone1234 wrote: post #63
diakritikal wrote: post #17

In the last 5 years we've experimented with Linux on top of hyper-v a few times. The basic I/O, compile & runtime performance was significantly inferior to xen & kvm (didn't bench against vmware, phasing it out due to cost), it wasn't worth any effort to even deploy apps for testing. Therefore I don't see Linux on hyper-v being a compelling option for the cost conscientious technical officer or lead engineer.

With all due respect: I don't buy it. That isn't how the technology works. Compilation in particular would never even hit the hypervisor layer regardless of which one you were utilising. It is CPU/memory bound. The difference between hypervisors for IO is tiny. They're all slower than native, but vary very little between one another. That's why the manufacturers have all almost given up trying to use performance for…

I have a developer who can show a marked difference in performance between VMWare Fusion (paid) and VirtualBox (free) running Windows 7 on OSX. Same Windows ISO used to install both, and both running on the same hardware and OS, with exact VM configs (as close a you can get between the two). I'm talking a night-and-day difference - VMWare Fusion is usable, but VirtualBox is not.

After reading your comment, and admittedly not knowing much about hypervisors (yet), I am genuinely curious as to what else could be causing this drastic difference in performance, if not for the hypervisor itself. Any ideas?

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#78

Post by u02sgb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
cdnsteve wrote: post #6

A cloud provider that offers Linux and Windows, this is cutting edge.

Sure, it's not cutting edge, but it's one of a bunch of signs recently that Microsoft has turned over a new leaf in the last few years. Visual Studio's page now mentions Git, a GPLed piece of software built for Linux kernel development. They've come a long way from "GPL is cancer!"

And there's git-tf: http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/details.aspx?id=3047... a command line git-alike that will work with a TFS server.

Not nice to use, in my experience, but it is officially from MS.

Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner

#79

Post by Someone1234 »

stronglikedan wrote: post #77
Someone1234 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect: I don't buy it. That isn't how the technology works. Compilation in particular would never even hit the hypervisor layer regardless of which one you were utilising. It is CPU/memory bound. The difference between hypervisors for IO is tiny. They're all slower than native, but vary very little between one another. That's why the manufacturers have all almost given up trying to use performance for…

I have a developer who can show a marked difference in performance between VMWare Fusion (paid) and VirtualBox (free) running Windows 7 on OSX. Same Windows ISO used to install both, and both running on the same hardware and OS, with exact VM configs (as close a you can get between the two). I'm talking a night-and-day difference - VMWare Fusion is usable, but VirtualBox is not. After reading your comment, and admitt…

I was more talking about actual hypervisors that run on hardware. Client hypervisors (those that run on an underlying OS) are an entirely different thing.

Real hypervisors are utilising a lot of hardware features to accomplish jailing. Client hypervisors may or may not be, depending on how they're implemented, and or how they're integrated into the underlying OS (e.g. specialised drivers, just simulating hardware features, etc).

Post reply on HN