Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft's Lessons Learned From Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Microsoft's Lessons Learned From Linux

    Phoronix: Microsoft's Lessons Learned From Linux

    Another session taking place next week at the 6th Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, besides Qualcomm allegedly wanting to kill all proprietary drivers, is two Microsoft engineers talking about their Linux driver development experiences...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA3OTA

  • #2
    Hehe, they learned you have to be responsive to "the community". Out of touch with their customers perhaps???

    Comment


    • #3


      Microsoft just try to kill all baby penguins thatís for sure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Whoa, Q. Holy crap!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
          Whoa, Q. Holy crap!
          in my point of view this kernel driver is just a Trojan horse to kill Linux on the server market.

          Comment


          • #6
            Nice job Q.!

            Comment


            • #7
              So Microsoft learned that Linux has higher standards and is faster, cleaner and more efficient as a result. I wonder when they will begin to develop in the open. 2020?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                in my point of view this kernel driver is just a Trojan horse to kill Linux on the server market.
                I think Microsoft is the reluctant party this time... they were scratching their heads wondering why VMWare and Citrix were taking all of their virtualization customers and then realized that their few remaining ones were SCREAMING at them to get Linux performing at the required levels.

                Also, I bet when approaching new customers it must have come up during the evaluation phases (LOL I bet that went over well with Ballmer... when VMWare swoops in and checks all of the boxes Microsoft cannot deliver on for over half of their customer's requirements!)... by golly they must have felt like they were getting their asses kicked.
                Last edited by kazetsukai; 03-29-2012, 05:22 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kazetsukai View Post
                  I think Microsoft is the reluctant party this time... they were scratching their heads wondering why VMWare and Citrix were taking all of their virtualization customers and then realized that their few remaining ones were SCREAMING at them to get Linux performing at the required levels.

                  Also, I bet when approaching new customers it must have come up during the evaluation phases (LOL I bet that went over well with Ballmer... when VMWare swoops in and checks all of the boxes Microsoft cannot deliver on for over half of their customer's requirements!)... by golly they must have felt like they were getting their asses kicked.
                  you are right ... but this "kernel" driver is in fact for "microsoft" and not for linux.

                  this means it would be better if the linux people don't work together with microsoft.

                  but yes the linux people are just to "Friendly"

                  microsoft and apple would never allow such a "inside-kernel-code" in the windows kernel or mac os kernel.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    microsoft and apple would never allow such a "inside-kernel-code" in the windows kernel or mac os kernel.
                    Say what?

                    Oh, I get it -- so the digital signatures signed off by Microsoft on the VirtualBox and VMware drivers are, what? Hacks employed by fortune-500 companies (Oracle and VMware) to get around Microsoft restrictions?

                    Come on now, Q, think. Microsoft intentionally allows its direct competitors to install kernel modules into the Windows kernel to do virtualization better than Microsoft's own product can. And they like this. From their point of view, they can't complain -- they're still getting the Windows licenses either way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                      Say what?

                      Oh, I get it -- so the digital signatures signed off by Microsoft on the VirtualBox and VMware drivers are, what? Hacks employed by fortune-500 companies (Oracle and VMware) to get around Microsoft restrictions?

                      Come on now, Q, think. Microsoft intentionally allows its direct competitors to install kernel modules into the Windows kernel to do virtualization better than Microsoft's own product can. And they like this. From their point of view, they can't complain -- they're still getting the Windows licenses either way.
                      you mean the closed source "Virtualbox" version and the cloused source VMware...

                      show me a opensource version with windows kernel "modules"

                      there are no "digital signatures signed off by microsoft" so allow the freedom of "opensource/free software"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                        show me a opensource version with windows kernel "modules"

                        there are no "digital signatures signed off by microsoft" so allow the freedom of "opensource/free software"
                        Take a look here:
                        http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/...text=&chbtext=
                        [RANT]
                        It would be nice though if this drivers came bundled with Windows so I didn't have to provide "floppy disk" with the drivers at install time
                        [/RANT]
                        Last edited by Ansla; 03-30-2012, 08:33 AM. Reason: Add rant

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                          you are right ... but this "kernel" driver is in fact for "microsoft" and not for linux.
                          This is absolutely right, they wrote it so that HyperV could theoretically compete with XenServer and ESX(i).

                          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                          this means it would be better if the linux people don't work together with microsoft.
                          This is where your tin foil hat shows... Its worth getting their virtualization drivers into the kernel regardless. The kernel devs were surprised (to say the least) seeing Microsoft trying to make commits but didn't really give them the time of day at first. Their drivers were horribly written and didn't even conform to the ABI at first, so why would a kernel dev entertain such a request?

                          Here's the funny part: At this point, Microsoft first went back to its customers and said they can't implement these changes _because_ of the kernel developers ("Its their fault they rejected our code!"). The customers ultimately didn't care, Microsoft pushed back saying they were trying, etc.... the kernel devs just didn't give a shit about Microsoft's release schedule. Afterall, why care? It wasn't their problem. Today, you see maintainable HyperV drivers in mainline, done by Microsoft under the GPL. This isn't even 10 years after they called the GPL a "virus that threatens intellectual property".

                          Can you seriously imagine how red in the face Ballmer got when he realized that Microsoft would have to officially support Linux in some form to get their most wanted customers? And had to use the GPL to do it?

                          Shit like this gives me hope for tomorrow.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kazetsukai View Post
                            Can you seriously imagine how red in the face Ballmer got when he realized that Microsoft would have to officially support Linux in some form to get their most wanted customers? And had to use the GPL to do it?
                            Shit like this gives me hope for tomorrow.
                            You know, do you? That eselons don't care about things like that (they underlings takes care sh*t they left). They went to podium, they talk bullshit, and they forgot about it! I bet my 0.2 cents he (Ballmer) don't remember anymore that he ever said that word.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by t.s. View Post
                              You know, do you? That eselons don't care about things like that (they underlings takes care sh*t they left). They went to podium, they talk bullshit, and they forgot about it! I bet my 0.2 cents he (Ballmer) don't remember anymore that he ever said that word.
                              you are so right these people donít give shit about yesterdays talking.

                              business as usual

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X