Microsoft Joins The Linux Foundation As A Platinum Member

[rabcor]

Wait how is this even allowed? They're basically Linux's biggest competitor and the ones who profit most from downswings in Linux market shares, they have a massive conflict of interest here...

[rabcor]

Perhaps MS wants to use Linux as a future backend to Windows someday? It will still be locked down to high heaven with proprietary API and all but perhaps some good can come from it eventually? We just need a MAJOR shift to Vulkan API to really give the message to MS that platform locked API's are NOT the way of the future.

Not happening, do you know how easy it is for Microsoft to manipulate publishers (yes they don't need to talk to devs, just publishers) to stick with DX12 over Vulkan? Just throw them a little bit of money and problem solved. Doesn't even need to be a lot of money unless the developer was planning to go cross platform or do smartphone support.

[cRaZy-bisCuiT]

Couldn't they just fuckoff instead? By the way, can you just buy in this club without anyone could prevent you from doing so?!?

[shinger]

I don't think they can push the EEE (Embrace, Extend, Exterminate), Linux. The problem or weakness you could say with other software was, it was largely part of a company. Linux however, does not belong to anybody.

Let's say they are on stage 3 to exterminate (having functionality that is Windows only). Companies even if they would then step over to Windows, the community of Linux will still keep on existing. The whole story begins all over. Companies start using Linux again, to prevent vendor-locking. We know their goal is Linux Server market even if they get large portion of Linux market, this will eventually decline again in favor of Linux.

Bro, i can assure you and everybody else, that no server-OS ESPECIALLY Microsoft server OS will be on the level that Linux is on. speed, lightweight etc.

What is beneficial for Linux that M$ joined Linux foundation? Two things, they give money for development and in the end they show their true color for companies who already are part of the foundation and do not know intention of M$. In the end as we all expect how M$ it's intention is..which is EEE. Which could end in a ban from Linux foundation or so and also a alert for companies who do want to benefit from Linux being open source and keeping it like that.

[ossuser]

Historically, Microsoft wants to dominate.

But Microsoft's clients want to be able to run Linux, so Microsoft invests in Linux.
Microsoft also invests in virtualisation.
And then there is SecureBoot, which is dominated by Microsoft.
So, Microsoft invests in being able to run Linux from within Windows.

Clients happy, and with the SecureBoot lockdown that I see coming, the only way to run open source is from within Windows.

So, basically you won't own your system anymore, because you can't boot your own kernel.
Microsoft wins, and dominates the PC platform.

[DebianXFCE Jr]

FYI: Admission in Linux foundation has no barrier, you pay, you get in. There is a buttload of high-profile corporations in Linux foundation already, more or less everyone worth shit is already a member of Linux foundation. See for yourself: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/corporate

Nice troll bullshit, btw. Keep it up, we like to have high-quality trollposts on Phoronix.

If you really insist the pleasure is mine.

[DebianXFCE Jr]

Historically, Microsoft wants to dominate.

But Microsoft's clients want to be able to run Linux, so Microsoft invests in Linux.
Microsoft also invests in virtualisation.
And then there is SecureBoot, which is dominated by Microsoft.
So, Microsoft invests in being able to run Linux from within Windows.

Clients happy, and with the SecureBoot lockdown that I see coming, the only way to run open source is from within Windows.

So, basically you won't own your system anymore, because you can't boot your own kernel.
Microsoft wins, and dominates the PC platform.

Lets not go that far. It simply won't happen. World is not USA only. Each country has its own law, just like each user has hers/his own needs or favorite software. No one can forbid you to write your own piece of software and let it live its own life in the web. The name "open source" + license of the source code states it clearly what you can do with it. Your statement sounds like a FUD to me.

[Indomitable]

Clients happy, and with the SecureBoot lockdown that I see coming, the only way to run open source is from within Windows.

So, basically you won't own your system anymore, because you can't boot your own kernel.
Microsoft wins, and dominates the PC platform.

Microsoft was dominating in the PC market long before Secureboot. The problem is that the PC market is shrinking every day and there is no big company willing to invest into desktop linux distribution. Only Canonical is trying, but still no profits from Ubuntu for desktop. RedHat and Suse are using theirs desktop distributions (Fedora/OpenSuse) just to test the software before integrating it in the server distributions. Everything what is done in the Linux desktop world is done by enthusiasts and with no long term planning. There are gazillions of UIs but no that fits everybody needs. Every distro is using it's own package manager just to make the live hell to software producers. Every distro is shiping different versions of libraries, so if you want your software to work everywhere you need to statically link everything and to include it in your package and here it is new package systems were introduced: SNAP and FlatPak, maybe more will come.
Microsoft is winning PC market because they have one version of UI, one version of api and everything is backwards compatible. There is software made 20 years ago and still you can run it on latest version of Windows. Can you do this in Linux ?

[gamerk2]

Microsoft was dominating in the PC market long before Secureboot. The problem is that the PC market is shrinking every day and there is no big company willing to invest into desktop linux distribution. Only Canonical is trying, but still no profits from Ubuntu for desktop. RedHat and Suse are using theirs desktop distributions (Fedora/OpenSuse) just to test the software before integrating it in the server distributions. Everything what is done in the Linux desktop world is done by enthusiasts and with no long term planning. There are gazillions of UIs but no that fits everybody needs. Every distro is using it's own package manager just to make the live hell to software producers. Every distro is shiping different versions of libraries, so if you want your software to work everywhere you need to statically link everything and to include it in your package and here it is new package systems were introduced: SNAP and FlatPak, maybe more will come.
Microsoft is winning PC market because they have one version of UI, one version of api and everything is backwards compatible. There is software made 20 years ago and still you can run it on latest version of Windows. Can you do this in Linux ?

Pretty much this.

[Kushan]

Surprised it took so long for someone to mention EEE with all this.

Conspiracy theories are nice, but it's obvious this is about Azure and it's logical as to why: Azure is the future for Microsoft. "The Cloud" is the big bet that will cause Microsoft to sink or swim in an ecosystem that's moving away from desktop PCs and onto devices Microsoft simply does not have a foothold on - mobile, tablets and so on. Microsoft is done without Azure.

The problem is, for Azure to succeed, it has to compete with other cloud providers on every front. Microsoft has to offer things like container support, Linux support and so on. They're going even further by investing heavily in cross-platform tools and products, like .net and SQL server because they know that's the only way people will use them. If Azure was number 1 in the market, it would probably have been a different story but AWS beat them to it.

It's for the same reason that Google joined the .net foundation, because they have a vested interest in ensuring the technology is compatible. Imagine if Microsoft didn't bother with Docker support for Azure, how long before even their big Azure customers left for another cloud, because it's so easy to be cloud agnostic when you're using containers?

At the end of the day, it's all open source. If you don't like it, you can fork your code and go home. Ultimately, this is a good move for everyone. By ensuring that Microsoft is compatible with Linux, you're no longer locked in. You have the choice to use Windows or Linux if you want - and Linux is all about choice.