Microsoft Continues Improving Its Internal Linux Distro With Another Update

[binarybanana]

Mariner... Like a submarine stealthily operating behind enemy lines..?

@jacob: Exploitation is a form of abuse, too. Let me ask the other way: What has Microsoft done for Linux? All they've done is make Linux work as co-OS on Windows or run better on Azure. It's all traps and snares for more comprehensive vendor lock-in. I am not fooled by their tongues.

[jacob]

Mariner... Like a submarine stealthily operating behind enemy lines..?

@jacob: Exploitation is a form of abuse, too. Let me ask the other way: What has Microsoft done for Linux? All they've done is make Linux work as co-OS on Windows or run better on Azure. It's all traps and snares for more comprehensive vendor lock-in. I am not fooled by their tongues.

If "exploitation is a form of abuse" then each and every of those self-proclaimed experts who use Linux without contributing (in kind or financially) to its development are abusing it too? I don't think so.

Since Navella came in, MS has done more for Linux than many and, I dare say, more than virtually any MS basher on phoronix or elsewhere. Strangely, many of those bashers somehow whitewash Apple, when Apple is the one company that is overtly hostile to anything GPL and towards Linux in particular. Even Oracle is a better neighbour.

Microsoft's HyperV support is a big deal - like it or not, the demand for running Linux as a guest on Azure or on a Windows virtualisation host it is huge and having it officially supported by MS itself makes all the difference. They also allowed ExFAT to be supported in mainline, without fear of patent lawsuits, that's another huge usability win. People were worried when they took over GitHub but in truth, none of the foretold catastrophes have occurred, MS has proven to be a good custodian of what has become an essential component of the FOSS ecosystem's infrastructure. Having some of their tools like VS Code supported officially on Linux doesn't exactly hurt either. IIRC they also did minor contributions and bugfixes here and there, including in Samba. They are a member of the Linux Foundation and of Linaro, which means they directly fund various kernel-related (and other) projects, they are a member of the Rust Foundation and have been instrumental in addressing some of the language's shortcomings for real world use, like cargo's poor integration with existing build systems. They occasionally gave financial contributions to various FOSS projects including GNOME and OpenSSH.

Of course they have done all that in their own self-interest. That's part of Stallman's "Freedom no. 1": modify the program to make it work as YOU wish.

[deusexmachina]

If Microsoft loves Linux, it's an abusive relationship.

Most software developers don't seem to be able to differeniate between "loving someone because of who they are" vs "loving someone for what they can do for you" - with Microsoft it'll be completely the latter.

[jacob]

Most software developers don't seem to be able to differeniate between "loving someone because of who they are" vs "loving someone for what they can do for you" - with Microsoft it'll be completely the latter.

Someone who "loves" software in the same way he or she loves a person should probably go and see a psychiatrist. Software is utilitarian. It makes zero sense to love a piece of software for "what it is" - whatever that means, by the way, it's not going to help anyone. You can love software for what it does, in other words, for what it enables you to do.

[jacob]

I would like to see a non-GNU but freeware desktop by Microsoft for Linux.
Despite how excellent most open source software is, current Linux desktops are poo.

If they are "poo" it's largely due to:

1. missing or poor quality hardware drivers (cough cough nVidia). This problem can be mitigated by buying hardware that has official first class Linux support.

2. the traditional package management methods which, with their intricate webs of dependencies and conflicts, are poorly suited for desktop applications. The new generation of desktop-centric package installers like Appimage and Flatpak go a long way towards addressing that issue (with caveats), but unfortunately so far many of the packages available through those channels are unofficial third party builds (although the number of official first class Flatpak releases is growing).

3. that application developers obsess about reinventing the wheel every time because "muh choice" rather than using standardised OS-provided integration points. There is no technical solution to that problem, the best we can do is ignore the homemade "me too" solutions

[ClosedSource]

If they are "poo" it's largely due to:

1. missing or poor quality hardware drivers (cough cough nVidia). This problem can be mitigated by buying hardware that has official first class Linux support.

2. the traditional package management methods which, with their intricate webs of dependencies and conflicts, are poorly suited for desktop applications. The new generation of desktop-centric package installers like Appimage and Flatpak go a long way towards addressing that issue (with caveats), but unfortunately so far many of the packages available through those channels are unofficial third party builds (although the number of official first class Flatpak releases is growing).

3. that application developers obsess about reinventing the wheel every time because "muh choice" rather than using standardised OS-provided integration points. There is no technical solution to that problem, the best we can do is ignore the homemade "me too" solutions

Very well put, notably the last point.

[deusexmachina]

Someone who "loves" software in the same way he or she loves a person should probably go and see a psychiatrist. Software is utilitarian. It makes zero sense to love a piece of software for "what it is" - whatever that means, by the way, it's not going to help anyone. You can love software for what it does, in other words, for what it enables you to do.

You're braking the analogy though. Software cannot love other software either; we're talking about the relationship between Microsoft (the software or corporation) and another piece of software (Linux).

[Malsabku]

in 20 years, this will be the base of windows, which will run a proprietary runtime. The desktop will be a standard GNU Desktop, but Windows Apps will target the Win32/64 ABI, which will be a static runtime.

Despite this will run on all modern versions of linux, people will still pay for Windows subscriptions(support) as no one is going to touch their service delivery on the desktop.

No, there is no reason for Microsoft to use Linux on the desktop. On the whole, technically the Windows (NT) Base is multiple years ahead of the Linux Desktop ecosystem, and I say this as a Linux user.

Windows has:
- faster boot time
- better power management
- better standby/hibernate/sleep support
- better fractional scaling support
- VRR
- complete Adaptive Sync/FreeSync/GSync support
- HDR
- flawless 10/12 bit colour depth support
- instant integration of full-screen games/application incl flawless application switching
- DirectStorage, many more modern 3D technologies
- Better tracking engine, faster file listing in Explorer despite old filesystem
- Backwards compatibility up to 30 years
- modern security technologies
- and much more

Microsoft would be stupid if they would deal with Wayland trash on the desktop and many more flaws. Technically the Windows OS base is minimum 5 years ahead of Linux on the Desktop.