Microsoft Releases Its Own Open-Source Process Monitor For Linux

[Jaxad0127]

I don't think you can build proprietary stuff on top of the Linux kernel, because of GPL. I also expect Microsoft to de-emphasize Windows in their stack somehow, but I don't think they'll switch to a Linux kernel. Then again, I've been wrong before

Plenty of proprietary stuff is done on Linux. The GPL explicitly allows "arms length" interactions, which is how most software treats the kernel. DirectX is more troublesome in that regard, though.

[evasb]

Nothing wrong with writing something for their future WSL2 distro that will be exclusive to use on WSL.

Workstation Linux employees will find it increasingly difficult to justify the use of Linux at work and this will be the final nail in the Linux desktop coffin.

[c117152]

They already are, see Azure Sphere OS

Look up Xenix for some real nostalgia.

[waxhead]

Why? we already have htop ... and the only thing htop is missing is disk usage like nmon

[DanL]

It took 17 posts for someone to trot out the EEE meme. You are slipping when it comes to paranoia, Phoronix.

[torsionbar28]

Step by step..... Eventually Microsoft will become a Linux distro vendor. LOL.

Linux is a threat to their core operating system market. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. As with many crimes, the first step is gaining the victim's trust. Don't be fooled.

[Raka555]

60mb lol, bloat driven company

Where do you get 60MB from ?

It is waaayyy worse than that ...

60mb lol, bloat driven company

Either they're using CEF or EEF (Edge embedded framework), or they're shipping a bunch of libraries along, down to the libc.

[stormcrow]

I fully expect Microsoft will, in the next few years, do what Apple did years ago and switch their kernel. MS will use Linux due to how active development is. With their strategy of cloud services, it really makes no sense for them to maintain the expense of writing and maintaining their own kernel. I think they are just waiting until they can get all the pieces they need built for a smooth transition and some level of backwards compatibility.

Yeah. No. That's not going to happen. Microsoft is a company whose primary customers are risk adverse and will sit on software developed 25+ years ago. Like a die hard gun rights activist "You'll pry my software from my cold dead hands". Microsoft is not Apple. Microsoft will never be Apple. They aren't even in the same market. Microsoft sells to corporations that want backwards compatibility for the indefinite future. That's why their services are aimed at migrating to the cloud. Windows will be around for a long time still to come in one form or another either as a virtualized back end target or some sort of embedded emulation layer in a next-gen OS designed better for data security.

If Microsoft does anything, they'll realize that current security models, Linux/Unix included, are outdated and inadequate for the future of data security. They may eventually migrate to something else closer to the ideals of OpenVMS which NT was originally modeled on. But, it will not be the Windows of today, nor will it be Unix beyond a transition period where Linux will be a place holder on the back end. Almost no one short of professionals and enthusiasts will be aware of it on the user side of a migration to remote server model/thin client in most of the industry. Microsoft has already started that particular trend with their cash cow and flagship software transitioned to remote services model: Office 365 which is currently usable on any computer with a supported web browser. Moving in this direction basically makes the OS on which they run their software and sell their services (including legacy software support) irrelevant beyond internal support costs.

[andyprough]

Looks like an extremely poor man's version of glances.