Microsoft loves Linux - Azure

[LAwLz]

No, you've got it all wrong, It was Ballmer's fault that Microsoft pulled all of that bullshit at them. But, since he's gone now (thank god) we've got someone completely different at the wheel who wants to embrace Linux.

Ballmer was not a dictator over Microsoft. It wasn't Ballmer who for example tried to push Secure boot that couldn't be turned off as a requirement for Windows 8, it was Microsoft. Microsoft did these things, and so I won't believe that Microsoft has changed a whole lot over night.

Saying that it was only Ballmer's fault is as silly as saying Nvidia shouldn't get any blame for making GameWorks proprietary, because Jen-Hsun is the CEO so he should take the blame. It's still Nvidia doing it and standing behind their decisions.

 

What you're doing now is called scapegoating.

[ItsComrade]

People are always going to buy windows. Linux will, for a long time at least, be for a niche. This is a great business decision, until Linux is pushed on the masses.

[Misanthrope]

Fundamentally, a bog standard computer still needs an OS and Linux is too cluncky for the general user (it is, don't pretend it isn't).

We're decades (I'm talking 50/60 years before we can fulfill 100% of the world's computer needs with thin-client systems at a reasonable cost. You don't want to live in a world whereby getting access to a decent gaming system means paying Nvidia/AMD $100 a month, but because it's not a Microsoft thin-client you need to pay Microsoft $50 a month to use a thin-client with Office and other Microsoft exclusives

 

Re: Chrome OS. Yes you need an OS, but only a very basic one to get you online and run 1 or 2 apps offline and the rest all cloud based. That's not 50 or 60 years away giving the success Google is already founding with it.

 

So we will still need oses to boot and get basic functionality, but an OS as a powerful, full featured complete system that's worth paying money for? That might not be needed and Satya Nadella might be thinking this and knows he won't be making a lot of money of selling software as a lone entity vs selling a service like cloud based services. Which should surprise no one since he came from that side of MS business.

[The_Strict_Nein]

Re: Chrome OS. Yes you need an OS, but only a very basic one to get you online and run 1 or 2 apps offline and the rest all cloud based. That's not 50 or 60 years away giving the success Google is already founding with it.

So we will still need oses to boot and get basic functionality, but an OS as a powerful, full featured complete system that's worth paying money for? That might not be needed and Satya Nadella might be thinking this and knows he won't be making a lot of money of selling software as a lone entity vs selling a service like cloud based services. Which should surprise no one since he came from that side of MS business.

Chrome OS is good for a subset of users, but not EVERY user. Most users on this site, for instance.

I'm talking a long time for 100% replacement

[Misanthrope]

Chrome OS is good for a subset of users, but not EVERY user. Most users on this site, for instance.

I'm talking a long time for 100% replacement

 

Which are a very tiny minority of enthusiasts, the majority of users however? They'd prefer simplicity. That's why the mobile phone market basically exploded most common folk I know just use a phone and consider their pcs or laptops as devices used for homework, work, etc. 

 

Mind you, I'm not saying the enthusiast market is going anywhere since there will always be power users and users that program apps and maintain infrastructure for others and they will always want full featured systems. But that's not why the PC market took a severe dive when tablets became a thing for example, the bulk of sales will come from much simpler devices like Chromebooks, tablets, and what I expect MS to do next which is a bare bones free OS.

[Altecice]

M$ came late into into the game with VM and cloud storage but its nice to see they have the money and the willpower to make it a success... I wish them every success and hope they give me a job haha!

[yoloswag9000]

Microsoft tactic since 1995: Embrace, extend and extinguish

"Cloud Operating Systems" - Phase 1, Embrace!

[smjpl]

I can't help but feel like they are doing this for some bad reason.

Sorry Microsoft but all the anti-competitive bullshit you've pulled toward GNU/Linux throughout the years makes it hard to believe that you just did a 180 turn and went "we love you now!". It's kind of like an abusive husband coming home after a big fight going "baby, I love you. Here, I brought some flowers". Sure you brought flowers today but yesterday you were trying to kill her.

 

They may not love Linux but it is easy to see why they changed their public perception opinion of Linux.

 

 

Perception isn't the right word. What is a better word for opinion?

[vm'N]

They may not love Linux but it is easy to see why they changed their public perception of Linux.

 

[Kamina]

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers....

 

Glad Steve is gone.

[yoloswag9000]

They may not love Linux but it is easy to see why they changed their public perception opinion of Linux.

 

[snip]

 

Perception isn't the right word. What is a better word for opinion?

I doubt that their perception has changed. They simply lost and have to accept that open source won everywhere except in the consumer market.

They have to support what everyone is using to stay relevant.

 

Microsoft is fighting for their life in the server market.

[smjpl]

I doubt that their perception has changed. They simply lost and have to accept that open source won everywhere except in the consumer market.

They have to support what everyone is using to stay relevant.

 

Microsoft is fighting for their life in the server market.

 

See perception is the wrong word. I meant how they publicly speak about Linux. 

[mr moose]

I doubt that their perception has changed. They simply lost and have to accept that open source won everywhere except in the consumer market.

They have to support what everyone is using to stay relevant.

 

Microsoft is fighting for their life in the server market.

 

Just curious as to how you qualify "won everywhere except in the consumer market" when referring to open source?

[smjpl]

Just curious as to how you qualify "won everywhere except in the consumer market" when referring to open source?

 

Microsoft still has a foothold (exchange and active directory I think) but I think Linux has fairly dominated the server market in terms of new projects anyway. Hasn't it?

[mr moose]

Microsoft still has a foothold (exchange and active directory I think) but I think Linux has fairly dominated the server market in terms of new projects anyway. Hasn't it?

not really, Linux has dominated the web server market and the super computer market, But windows has only just recently slipped under 50% corporate server market share.  This is for many reasons (including the two you mentioned).  Linux in this field is a real competitor because companies don't have to retrain thousands of people, however the Linux variations of implemented servers is only 30-40% while the Unix variants make up the rest. Excluding custom server OS's that are rare.

 

However I was more looking for qualification about open source winning, To my knowledge there is no evidence that being opens source is the reason any software is successful. 

[yoloswag9000]

not really, Linux has dominated the web server market and the super computer market, But windows has only just recently slipped under 50% corporate server market share.  This is for many reasons (including the two you mentioned).  Linux in this field is a real competitor because companies don't have to retrain thousands of people, however the Linux variations of implemented servers is only 30-40% while the Unix variants make up the rest. Excluding custom server OS's that are rare.

 

However I was more looking for qualification about open source winning, To my knowledge there is no evidence that being opens source is the reason any software is successful. 

Look at every new kind of hardware in the last few years.

Smarphones, tablets, smartwatches, set-top boxes, streaming devices, netbooks (aka chromebooks), e-reader, in-vehicle entertainment, smart tv's. All run linux, all run an open source user space, all use open source languages, all use open sources libraries. Shipping a new product is getting more and more complex so the only way to ship fast is by building on an already existing infrastructure which you can modify to fit your needs exactly. 90% open source stack + 10% user-facing proprietary software.

[mr moose]

Look at every new kind of hardware in the last few years.

Smarphones, tablets, smartwatches, set-top boxes, streaming devices, netbooks (aka chromebooks), e-reader, in-vehicle entertainment, smart tv's. All run linux, all run an open source user space, all use open source languages, all use open sources libraries. Shipping a new product is getting more and more complex so the only way to ship fast is by building on an already existing infrastructure which you can modify to fit your needs exactly. 90% open source stack + 10% user-facing proprietary software.

 

Well, not all of those are open source, more than half of the tablets are Ipads which are closed, and most in car is own by blackberry.  But the question is not does it have market share, but is it the fact that it's open source that is the driver.  Linux has 90% market share in web serving, but is it because it's open source, or is it because it's stable, easy, universal or a combination?

[yoloswag9000]

Well, not all of those are open source, more than half of the tablets are Ipads which are closed, and most in car is own by blackberry.  But the question is not does it have market share, but is it the fact that it's open source that is the driver.  Linux has 90% market share in web serving, but is it because it's open source, or is it because it's stable, easy, universal or a combination?

All Apple operating systems contain huge amount of open source software. Blackberry is not comparable with a complete in-vehicle infotainment system.

 

It's certainly popular because of the license. To build a system you have to adapt things. You have to change and modify things in every part of the stack. From the kernel to the UI. That's only possible with open source software.

 

edit: I think I completely forgot embeded. Everything embeded which is big enough to run an OS and doesn't have real-time requirements runs linux.

[Zyphera]

Pinch my arm really really hard. I must be dreaming!

[Guest andyysplash]

Not to mention that Windows 10 added some Linux/OS X features, and they've switched more toward a lighter OS since 7. We'll never see Windows on the Linux kernal though, even though I'm sure there are people who want that.

Even Ubuntu requires a lot of terminal use though unless your needs are so basic that Chrome OS could meet them.

Terminal use (or background/technical tools use) =/= clunky.

A better description would be "lacking polish". There are some nice interfaces out there.

[Techhog]

Terminal use (or background/technical tools use) =/= clunky.

A better description would be "lacking polish". There are some nice interfaces out there.

I personally mean "not average-user friendly". Clunky is a bad description, I agree.

[razor767]

Meh.......I just don't buy it. 

[RisingWarrior]

I am starting to like the new CEO. Not that I like M$ (manly because they fired so many employees, including barnacules). But it is good to see that they still can do good things.

[GoodBytes]

Meh.......I just don't buy it.

Well, you can pick it as OS and have full support, enterprise level, for it. Same as Windows, as selected OS.

[vm'N]

One of the reasons why open software have the advantage in the server enviroment is because it is legally hackable.

You can hack the software to fit your purposes. Which is a huge deal.