Microsoft Bringing eBPF Support To Windows

[FishB8]

This could end up taking a horrible turn for the worst for Microsoft. There are a stack of patents registered by Intel and others covering eBPF in kernel mode that would require GPL license to use.

You are conflating Patent Law with Copyright Law. GPL licensing is in the domain of copyright law. It has no bearing on patent law.

[willmore]

Good that Microsoft just port eBPF support directly to Windows without doing some NIH syndrome.

Are we confident this isn't some kind of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish plan like they have used many times in the past?

[ezst036]

We need: Microsoft Bringing ______ Partition Support To Windows

(ext2, 3, 4, xfs, btrfs a few others)

[Snaipersky]

We need: Microsoft Bringing ______ Partition Support To Windows

(ext2, 3, 4, xfs, btrfs a few others)

There's already a winbtrfs.

[uid313]

Are we confident this isn't some kind of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish plan like they have used many times in the past?

Well, they do embrace it, and they do extend it with Win32 APIs, but I don't think there is any way for them to extinguish it.

[Charlie68]

Hey, it does seem to happen more often, like with exFAT recently. Microsoft could be more of a motive force, though.

I haven't thought about exFAT, most likely because I've never used it. More can be done though ...

[oiaohm]

Isn't everyone a member of the OIN? https://openinventionnetwork.com/com...-alphabetical/

https://openinventionnetwork.com/joi...nse-agreement/ OIN agreement states clearly the patent grant is only for the Linux System.

[oiaohm]

You are conflating Patent Law with Copyright Law. GPL licensing is in the domain of copyright law. It has no bearing on patent law.

https://openinventionnetwork.com/joi...nse-agreement/ OIN agreement states clearly the patent grant is only for the Linux System.

Sorry to say you are wrong. Copyright law has a bearing on patent claim when you license to use that patent depends on that you have used a particular copyright license this is the case with the Linux Kernel/Linux System patent grant in particular areas. So yes Microsoft could end up with a patent claim because they used the wrong license because the wrong license will not give them patent protection.

[jacob]

It would also be nice if the opposite happened every now and then, for example the possibility of using Microsoft technologies in a Linux environment, especially for what concerns us desktop users.

It does happen too. IIRC, for example ACPI was designed in part by MS and Linux benefits from it. There is FAT, ExFAT (as already mentioned) and NTFS, there is HyperV and there is SMB. Granted, NTFS and Samba are reverse-engineered reimplementations in which Microsoft had historically no merit, but since Nadella's Perestroika, they are at least not trying to harm those projects. In fact I think they even contributed some bugfixes to Samba at some point.

[Charlie68]

It does happen too. IIRC, for example ACPI was designed in part by MS and Linux benefits from it. There is FAT, ExFAT (as already mentioned) and NTFS, there is HyperV and there is SMB. Granted, NTFS and Samba are reverse-engineered reimplementations in which Microsoft had historically no merit, but since Nadella's Perestroika, they are at least not trying to harm those projects. In fact I think they even contributed some bugfixes to Samba at some point.

But does NTFS really still exist? Grrr
You've also mentioned a lot of things we don't have to thank Microsoft for as you say yourself, so why mention them? Curious ..., but fortunately I don't need to use it anyway, I didn't switch to Linux 15 years ago to use wine! However it is good that it exists eh ...
Edit . Even claiming that ACPI is a Microsoft product doesn't make any sense, that Microsoft then initially developed it is one thing, but many other companies have.