81–90 of 140 posts
It's probably also the OS that used to run SQL Server on Linux announced this week - https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/07/announcing-sql-s... .
I doubt Ethernet switches run SQL Server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly the knife cuts both ways. Microsoft has a long way to go before they get the benefit of the doubt from me due to their decades of Embracing Extending and Extinguishing.
Agreed - it's good to be cautious - but, Microsoft's approach toward E/E/E was rational (if slightly evil), when they were trying to control the platform . But now, they are trying to control the service/data, in which case the cloud-API (theirs, preferably) is what they want everyone to buy into. In that model, they deploy completely proprietary service interfaces (similar to what Amazon does with AWS, stripe with t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article has changed since the last time I read it, minutes ago. It didn't used to have that link, and it used to speculate that the supposed linux distro would be MIT licensed. ...There are several things I don't like about this article.
> it used to speculate that the supposed linux distro would be MIT licensed That doesn't sound very credible of them. The kernel is stuck as GPL; that won't change anytime soon.
Why Linux? The networking stack on BSD is superior, and the OS places no copyleft restrictions! I'm starting to believe that developers choose OS/Tools the are used to (Linux in this case) versus the one best suited for the job (BSD)
Because the hardware [1] mostly is only supported on Linux, or the Linux support is more mature. Take the Cavium products: they shipped multiple distributions of Linux on the Arm64 products 2+ years ago, and FreeBSD around 18 months later. The Juniper products only support Linux. [1] http://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Networking/SpecsAndDesigns
A lot of Juniper products arrive with FreeBSD pre-installed. They just aren't obvious about it.
Why Linux? The networking stack on BSD is superior, and the OS places no copyleft restrictions! I'm starting to believe that developers choose OS/Tools the are used to (Linux in this case) versus the one best suited for the job (BSD)
I'm still baffled why people think this is a benefit. If you actually care about software freedom, lack of copyleft is a bad thing IMO. What's to stop $EvilCorp from creating a system that is completely locked down, can't be replaced, and is based on your technology? That's what UEFI is, by the way. It's only by Microsoft's blessing that you can install alternative operating systems on new Windows laptops. So please tell me more about why copyleft is a negative. If TianoCore was GPLv3, UEFI would actually be more bearable to work with (but core/libreboot is clearly the way to go on from here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you trying to get network throughput on a VM? Of course it's going to be slow, but KVM probably has some passthrough optimisations for Linux guests.
Because that's what software defined networking is (mostly) about. In the majority of cases it's used as a way to setup a network plane for virtualized hosts. Edit: See for example why VMWare bought Nicira: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/23/vmware-buys-nicira-for-1-26...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's what software defined networking is (mostly) about. In the majority of cases it's used as a way to setup a network plane for virtualized hosts. Edit: See for example why VMWare bought Nicira: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/23/vmware-buys-nicira-for-1-26...
I'm not a BSD guy, but I can still see it's a little unfair to compare the network throughputs of Linux and *BSD as guest VMs on a Linux host running KVM. You aren't going to get good throughout in that case without hardware passthrough (even then it's still bad). End of story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criddell is right about the history, and Xenix was literally not Unix either. At some point Microsoft agreed to not compete in the "Unix" operating system market, broadly defined. An awful lot has changed since then, including Microsoft buying a System V Unix license when SCO was extorting everyone (including Sun, as I recall) into doing that. There is so much water under the bridge, I imagine Microsoft could do it i…
Xenix was a Unix. It started out as based on Unix V 7, then System III, then System V when MS finally sold it to SCO. MS tends to keep a lot of fingers in a lot of cakes, even in surprising areas. Given the number of kernels MS Research has released, it wouldn't be too terrible of a stretch to see MS release some sort of unix at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because tfs is dying. Why port over tooling for a source management system that is on it's deathbed? [citation needed] Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. And improvements made to VSO have been shipping regularly as updates to accompanying TFS on-prem. Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? TFVC is also pretty popular as a Visual SourceSafe rep…
> Visual Studio Online (which is pretty much TFS in the cloud) is alive and well. Visual Studio Online supports Git. So, no, it is not "TFS in the cloud." TFS and Visual Studio Online are very loosely coupled. > Are you confusing TFS with Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC)? I'm not confusing anything, I just picked one of Microsoft's many acronyms they use for it. Even Microsoft's own consultants call it "TFS" wh…