Microsoft's Windows Subsystem For Linux Exits Beta

[starshipeleven]

Easy - find ways to ruin the Linux name and brand.

One way to "get rid of something" is to find ways to make it slow and shitty so that it has a bad reputation. All Microsoft has to do is offer Microsoft Azure to as many as possible and then make it suck to make their Windows offering more appealing. Ignorant Arrogant Admins will just assume Linux sucks and stop there.

This would work if the only virtualization infrastructure around is Azure. But if customers realize that on Amazon or Google's infrastructure (or others) their Linux and BSD systems run far faster, then it's going to be an issue. And many biggish customers aren't morons, they'll do their tests before shelling big $$$ and committing for a long time to some cloud infrastructure.

Places where admins are dumbfucks/fanbois or where managers take decisions after hiring *cough*MS bitches*cough*... ahem "consultants" will be swayed to whatever anyway, it's not like they need to see that Windows outperforms Linux.

[Vistaus]

If Linux server virtual machines are so wildly popular that Microsoft is even running them on its own cloud service, then Microsoft has given up plans of wiping out Linux on the server.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have Linux servers anyway? I remember that Hotmail ran on Linux when they aquired Hotmail but instead of switching to Windows, they only extended the Linux servers on their Hotmail platform. Not sure if it's running Linux still with outlook.com now. I'm just saying that they were already running Linux way earlier.

[starshipeleven]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have Linux servers anyway? I remember that Hotmail ran on Linux when they aquired Hotmail but instead of switching to Windows, they only extended the Linux servers on their Hotmail platform. Not sure if it's running Linux still with outlook.com now. I'm just saying that they were already running Linux way earlier.

According to Google you are wrong http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windo...4-131323.shtml

It seems they were using UNIX stuff, and MS ported it to run on Windows.

AFAIK the only places where they admitted they are using Linux is for their Azure network switches http://www.zdnet.com/article/microso...rating-system/
And BSD fans still complain because they didn't choose BSD over Linux because of its alleged "better network stack".

[Vistaus]

According to Google you are wrong http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windo...4-131323.shtml

It seems they were using UNIX stuff, and MS ported it to run on Windows.

Thanks for correcting me Although it's not just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook.com#History

"Hotmail originally ran on a mixture of FreeBSD and Solaris operating systems.^[21] A project was started to move Hotmail to Windows 2000. In June 2001, Microsoft claimed this had been completed; a few days later they retracted and admitted that the DNS functions of the Hotmail system were still reliant on FreeBSD. In 2002 Hotmail still ran its infrastructure on UNIX servers, with only the front-end converted to Windows 2000."

[Vistaus]

According to Google you are wrong http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windo...4-131323.shtml

It seems they were using UNIX stuff, and MS ported it to run on Windows.

AFAIK the only places where they admitted they are using Linux is for their Azure network switches http://www.zdnet.com/article/microso...rating-system/
And BSD fans still complain because they didn't choose BSD over Linux because of its alleged "better network stack".

Thanks for correcting me Although it's not just that:
"Hotmail originally ran on a mixture of FreeBSD and Solaris operating systems A project was started to move Hotmail to Windows 2000. In June 2001, Microsoft claimed this had been completed; a few days later they retracted and admitted that the DNS functions of the Hotmail system were still reliant on FreeBSD. In 2002 Hotmail still ran its infrastructure on UNIX servers, with only the front-end converted to Windows 2000."
Source: Wikipedia

[Mike Frett]

Embrace, extend and extinguish

It boggles the mind how people can't see what's happening.

[Delgarde]

If Linux server virtual machines are so wildly popular that Microsoft is even running them on its own cloud service, then Microsoft has given up plans of wiping out Linux on the server.

They've changed a lot since the days of Steve Ballmer and his crusade against the evils of open source. These days, their attitude seems to be that if they can make money off it, they'll take money off it.

So yes, it's a little embarrassing for them that a rival OS makes up such a large proportion of their cloud service. But if it's profitable, I'm sure they can live with a little embarrassment...

[Michael_S]

They've changed a lot since the days of Steve Ballmer and his crusade against the evils of open source. These days, their attitude seems to be that if they can make money off it, they'll take money off it.

It's not really a heroic change when you notice the way the world is going and do what you need to in order to survive.

I'm not going to make an argument that Java, Node.js, or PHP are great. I don't think they are. But they're open source and wildly popular. I think .NET and Chakra Core have to be open source for Microsoft to stop a slow trend of companies away from .NET and Windows to Linux and macOS.

So yes, it's a little embarrassing for them that a rival OS makes up such a large proportion of their cloud service. But if it's profitable, I'm sure they can live with a little embarrassment...

I thought about renting a Linux VM on Windows Azure just for the sake of amusement, but like AWS, Rackspace, and Google Cloud Computing their VMs cost a lot more than from services like DigitalOcean, Linode, Vultr, Scaleway, etc... etc...

[WLBI]

Believe me or not, but some years more and Windows will be complete be based on Linux. It will be just the Windows desktop, like there is KDE or Gnome.
It's not about fanboys, it's only about money. Microsoft is a company which likes to make cash. What else is better than outsource the whole kernel developer and let their work doing for free.
It's a slow step by step process Some years ago, nobody believed when I told you, that Windows will include Ubuntu.
Just keep in your back head, it's only about making big money for the stockholders, not for the fanboys.
One day, maybe 10 years or more, there will be Windows complete be based on the Linux kernel. So Microsoft can save Millions/Billions of development and maintenance costs to make their stockholders happy.

[L_A_G]

There's generally two ways to look at the WSL...

The first and the most obvious one is that it's a pure Embrace, Extend, Extinguish play intended to allow Windows user to run Linux-only software and Linux developers to do their development on Windows. Knowing Microsoft's past with people like Steve Balmer calling Linux "Literally communism" when he was CEO of the company this would be the most likely reason if Microsoft was still being run by the company's old guard.

However when you remember what the current management has been much more open to open source and at the same had a strong focus on cost reduction, it spawns a completely different theory. This theory suggests that Microsoft is moving to using open more and more source software and open standards as a way to continue providing customers with not only the same products and services, but also at lower cost to themselves and maybe the customers as well.

I for one can't make a definitive choice between either theory as in my mind neither theory is either completely unlikely or very likely.