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

The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

techrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#71

Post by jefurii »

bad_user wrote: post #27
ctvo wrote: post #9

There is a large group of people on the internet who never let the Microsoft of the 90s go. How does every single one of their business decisions get linked to some nefarious goal? The author doesn't even know what it could be, BUT DON'T FORGET! This company tried to patent everything decades ago! Don't forget they're not bringing bash to Windows out of the goodness in their hearts!

Last time I checked Microsoft was threatening Android phone makers with patents, many of those being related to Linux itself, collecting billions in patent royalties, being in essence a patents troll for the whole mobile industry. From where I'm standing, this seems no different than the Microsoft that funded the SCO lawsuit or that has spread FUD about Linux and open-source for years. So do tell me, how did Microsof…

Maybe part of this deal is MS agreeing not to patent-troll Canonical?

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#73

Post by wstrange »

scholia wrote: post #57
toolz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting MS has legitimate claims to IP used in android? Patent trolling isn't something new to MS, so why would anyone reasonably assume MS isn't patent trolling in the absence of all the facts when we have plenty of information and historical data to make reasonable presumptions?

> Are you suggesting MS has legitimate claims to IP used in android? Are you suggesting that MS has no legitimate claims to IP used in android? It seems to me that companies wouldn't do thee deals if there was no case to answer. It's not as though (for example) Samsung was a stranger to court action, and it's a much bigger company than Microsoft. It's also a fact that Microsoft pioneered Unix on PCs in the early 1980…

> It seems to me that companies wouldn't do these deals if there was no case to answer.

That is not the way the system works. For many companies it i s better to pay up for bogus IP claims rather than risk fighting it out in the courts and paying millions in legal fees.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#74

Post by CyanLite2 »

Ubuntu on Windows does more to destroy OS X. It's about developers choosing Macbooks over Surface Tablets and traditional laptops with a Win10 license.

If you're an enterprise running SQL Server now on Windows. You're not going to ditch your cluster to have it re-installed on Linux just to save a couple dollars on an OS license. But if you're a newbie developer fresh out of college and been doing development in a Unix-style environment (because they bought a Macbook instead of a Win8 laptop four years ago), you've probably never been exposed to a Microsoft development environment. These efforts are to capture the next generation of developers who haven't ever touched a Windows desktop and feel comfortable with writing Python on Linux and using MySQL or Oracle. Want proof? Quick, name one unicorn startup who has a Microsoft technology stack. Heck, just name anybody that's using a Microsoft development stack in Silicon Valley...

Now those developers can be targeted with .NET, SQL Server, and Ubuntu on Windows. Now instead of buying the same version of that Macbook, those folks can go buy a Surface Tablet clone with the pen and touch screen (and a Windows 10 license!), and still do all of their development on a Unix-style environment. Better yet some will transition to C#, and some will even take advantage of the free-license-for-Oracle-users to switch to SQL Server.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#75

Post by ocdtrekkie »

speeder wrote: post #22
gear54rus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That abomination of a system called win10 came out just a few years ago, not in 90s. Is spying on everyone and constantly sending telemetry even when disabled (to the extent people actually wrote a tool to go to every corner and forcefully disable it and even then it didn't work) not nefarious? What are you even talking about here, they haven't changed a slightest bit. Maybe I want to have updates that cannot be disa…

I came from the gamedev side of things. In there Microsoft now is perfectly still the 90s Microsoft. From my point of view, the Linux on Win10 is a strategic move to incentive people use Windows as their sole desktop (since with this move many people won't have any reason whatsoever to use Linux at all). I tried to convince lots of people on the Linux community that they need to react... of course, not blocking Micro…

This is, honestly, why Microsoft doesn't need to "incentivize" using Windows as their sole desktop: The reasons are already there: People have wanted things fixed for years like audio, driver support in general, ease of use, not having to edit text config files, and so on...

Linux isn't really much of a threat to Windows because Linux hasn't even really tried to successfully reach consumer product quality. Linux developers need to focus on this.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#76

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pjc50 wrote: post #24
speeder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came from the gamedev side of things. In there Microsoft now is perfectly still the 90s Microsoft. From my point of view, the Linux on Win10 is a strategic move to incentive people use Windows as their sole desktop (since with this move many people won't have any reason whatsoever to use Linux at all). I tried to convince lots of people on the Linux community that they need to react... of course, not blocking Micro…

What do you think of the Steam work on this? IMO they're doing it as a means of keeping their options open against the day when Microsoft decides not to allow a third-party app store on Windows and cuts off their air supply.

That's definitely why they're doing it, and it's a good idea for a business to hedge it's bets this way. (Zynga would be sunk if Facebook ever blocked them, being dependent on one platform is a huge risk.)

But the likelihood that Microsoft would ever fully disallow third party install on Windows is nonexistent.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#77

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jrcii wrote: post #52
ctvo wrote: post #9

There is a large group of people on the internet who never let the Microsoft of the 90s go. How does every single one of their business decisions get linked to some nefarious goal? The author doesn't even know what it could be, BUT DON'T FORGET! This company tried to patent everything decades ago! Don't forget they're not bringing bash to Windows out of the goodness in their hearts!

Their recent overtures toward open source are heartening, and for me did start to overcome the reputation of the old Microsoft. I was disappointed that they squandered that good will with the Windows 10 telemetry debacle.

Yeah, unfortunately I feel like in their rush to catch up to other modern tech companies, they picked up a few of other companies' bad habits. Insisting on constant telemetry feels like it's plucked from the Google playbook, and I really hope Microsoft changes their stance on it at some point.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#78

Post by vhab »

larrik wrote: post #44
vhab wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theories going on, on what I personally believe to be a really straight forward and logical reaction. From my perspective, "Bash on Windows" is a reaction to the wide adoption of OSX for development (In particularly web development seemed to have a mass migration). For obligatory anecdote: I'm a longtime and loyal Windows user. Windows has been my primary development platform eve…

You talk like developing on Linux means doing everything in the command line. *nix UX is nothing to be ashamed of, and I personally prefer it over Windows and OS X (especially OS X).

From an IT and "just works" perspective, Linux was a no-go for us.

It wasn't particularly about the UX on Linux desktops, but rather they don't fit in our company culture when it comes to how assets and IT are managed.

Which is why I wrote it from my own perspective as an anecdote.

As usual, YMMV

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#79

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wstrange wrote: post #73
scholia wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting MS has legitimate claims to IP used in android? Are you suggesting that MS has no legitimate claims to IP used in android? It seems to me that companies wouldn't do thee deals if there was no case to answer. It's not as though (for example) Samsung was a stranger to court action, and it's a much bigger company than Microsoft. It's also a fact that Microsoft pioneered Unix on PCs in the early 1980…

> It seems to me that companies wouldn't do these deals if there was no case to answer. That is not the way the system works. For many companies it i s better to pay up for bogus IP claims rather than risk fighting it out in the courts and paying millions in legal fees.

Arguably, Microsoft is known to be leveraging about 310 patents for this. There's a decent likelihood that at least a decent number of them are legitimate under current law (your views on where software patents should be aside). They may be able to defeat specific patents, individually, but that burden would be on them. Whereas the wholesale deal from Microsoft covers them from the legit ones and the illegit ones in the pile for probably an overall bargain.

It's probably pretty unlikely even most of the 310 claims would be seen as "bogus". Under current law.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#80

Post by theboywho »

stormbrew wrote: post #68
theboywho wrote: post #49

GNU is like Leonardo DiCaprio few years ago; never getting the Oscar. Microsoft did not bring Linux to Windows, it brought GNU. Linux is a kernel and there is not even a single bit of it in what microsoft brought to windows. It's technically GNU/Windows.

No. Just no. GNU on Windows has existed for a long time in several forms, for one thing. For another, by bringing a compatibility layer for the Linux kernel they have opened the door to much more than just GNU, and it remains incredibly reductivist to claim that that's all the Linux kernel does. You can use the Linux kernel (or this linux-compatible layer) to use a GNU system or a completely non-GNU system if you so…

You are wrong in so many ways. First of all, you are confusing "Microsoft bringing GNU to Windows" with "this is the first time GNU is brought to Windows." Then you go on to make it seem like if the GNU/Linux debate is just the craziness of some guy called RMS: wrong, many people support this distinction. Then you go off-topic talking about why GNU hurd is a mess. None of this contributes to the key topic here: Microsoft only brought GNU, not Linux and not Ubuntu. A topic where you were wrong again. Please read https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-kWindows
Post reply on HN