Microsoft Rebranding CBL-Mariner Linux Distribution To "Azure Linux"

[M.Bahr]

They aren't switching to Debian. Fedora is RH, so a competitor, again no.

Microsoft uses a fuckton of Linux internally. Eventually Windows will be a runtime ontop of Linux. Why? Because it runs better, has a fuckton of more contributors, and because its a collective effort, more contributors. Many of them today at top companies like IBM, Intel, NVIDIA, and AMD. I think every large computer company has a linux team. Dell also supports Ubuntu, and mainstreams the HW for Dell computers. Dell Servers and Linux have been a mainstay of datacenter work for at least 20 years.
They
But they aren't going to give up WIN32/DX. They will have their own runtime/drivers that will only be supporting on Windows/Azure Linux. It might be possible to run them on Arch, but no support. Let someone else do all the heavy lifting. After all, Edge is now based on Chromium, because why not? Its not like they where making money on selling a web browser.

There will be long term, predictable support, and no, their sales aren't going anywhere. The money is in support and contracts, and its far cheaper to maintain a runtime, with a stable API/ABI, and perhaps proprietary drivers that do DX, than a full OS.

Mark my words, Windows will eventually be based on CBL-Mariner/Azure Linux, with a proprietary runtime ontop of it.

This is a misunderstanding. I don't mean Windows to adapt the aforementioned distros but to build an own distro that was comparably open source like those distros. I edited my first comment to make it more clear.

With extreme probability Microsoft is never going to give up their vendor-lock-in tactics. The bosses within Microsoft's hierarchy are suits with high degrees from business schools and expensive universities in the US. They are highly aggressive and taught to act like cloned, militarized and career-driven sharks. Why should the shareholders want Microsoft to change their strategy that makes them tons of money. This is also the reason why developing windows is peanuts to them by the way. As a reminder: "Microsoft is the largest company in the world, with a market cap of $3.09 trillion."

As for your opinion about Microsoft's browser being based on chromium and everything was ok by that, i have to wonder about such a delusional statement. Microsoft's new Edge became exactly what i meant when Microsoft turns towards Open Source. They pick it up, change it, put proprietary code in it until it becomes something else, that they can abuse to vendor-lockin their customers again. And by this Microsoft abuse the original idea of FOSS. The "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" tactics may sound like a clichée to naive and unversed people but nobody can deny that it works!

"After all, Edge is now based on Chromium, because why not? Its not like they where making money on selling a web browser."

Sorry but this comment of yours is one of the most naive statements i have ever heard in a IT forum. The reality is 'He who controls the spice controls the universe'.
Do you really think Microsoft would give up gaining more browser market share? They show illicit behaviour again and again to promote their browser and websearch engine.

[HEL88]

Those client OS are all free giveaway just to sell those devices and connect people to cloud/Internet that runs on Linux. The whole world runs on Linux. Azure runs on Linux and runs mostly Linux VM images. The cloud/Internet make the money, not those fancy client OSes

Azure runs on Linux

You are completely wrong. Azure runs on Windows. Azure uses Hyper-V.

And as you can see, customers don't mind that Windows is the basis of work for Linux VMs.

mostly Linux VM images

For serving data Linux works just fine.

Why pay for Windows licenses when someone needs to run python, node, .net core (I work in it), java etc.? Pointless.

Such macOS on desktops is also several times more popular than Linux and it is completely absent on servers. And what does that prove?

[WileEPyote]

I wouldn't mind trying an Azure based desktop. As long as my software does what I want it to do. Yes, I prefer open source when available. Arch is my daily OS, but I still use Windows for proprietary apps like Photoshop, and especially gaming. As far as nix has come in gaming, it's still a hell of a lot easier and hassle free to game in windows. One thing devs don't seem to remember in linux at times, is that most end users don't know or care about open source. They want to google something, download it, double click and install.

Until that happens, Linux will never be the primary end user OS. We are the weirdos with our obsession with the terminal.

So if MS does a nix OS with with the ability to do that, I'm all for it. I see it as the best of both worlds, and might actually lead to some package unification in the nix world. It would give us nix fans more market penetration and higher visibility. That's an overall good thing. Look how easy it is to install apps in android. It's linux based.

If we want linux to be the go to os, we have to stop thinking like the nerds we are, and think of the needs of the general public. Us nerds will still have our hardcore distros. It's not a technical issue, but a group psychological issue. Make it easy for the general public, let them install and use their apps without hassle, whether proprietary or not, and we will still have the option to do things the way we prefer.

[mrg666]

You are completely wrong. Azure runs on Windows. Azure uses Hyper-V.

And as you can see, customers don't mind that Windows is the basis of work for Linux VMs.



For serving data Linux works just fine.

Why pay for Windows licenses when someone needs to run python, node, .net core (I work in it), java etc.? Pointless.

Such macOS on desktops is also several times more popular than Linux and it is completely absent on servers. And what does that prove?

OK, here is another link for you then.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-developer-reveals-linux-is-now-more-used-on-azure-than-windows-server/

If MS is telling they use Windows on Azure servers, I can't believe them. Actually, it does not matter at all.

What matters is, most of that data is served dominantly by Linux on the internet. Because Linux is the right operating system when capability, reliability, and performance matters. People whose choices matter choose Linux for running the internet. And, you are ignoring Android, which is the most popular client OS in the world, which also runs on Linux kernel. Winning the desktop does not matter anymore, most people do all they need on their mobile devices. Windows is leading a race that nobody runs anymore.

BTW, did you read the title of this thread? See below

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Microsoft-Azure-Linux

Second edit: Android can be a mini Linux system with just the addition of Busybox and one of the terminal emulators.

[HEL88]

If MS is telling they use Windows on Azure servers, I can't believe them.

The poor boy can't believe that Windows Server with Hyper-V is behind the world's second cloud.

most of that data is served dominantly by Linux on the internet.

Because for such primitive tasks Linux is perfectly suited. It always has been. 25 years ago it was also perfectly suitable for hosting sites in php. And today it serves bytes brilliantly.

In addition, the servers are supported by well-paid skilled engineers and have 24/7 care. Like in intensive care. Linux works well under such conditions.

Worse with the desktop. Where the user is the aministrator, not the IT guy with a high salary.

[jindam]

at first i assumed it some kind of military related software

[mrg666]

Because for such primitive tasks Linux is perfectly suited. It always has been. 25 years ago it was also perfectly suitable for hosting sites in php. And today it serves bytes brilliantly.

In addition, the servers are supported by well-paid skilled engineers and have 24/7 care. Like in intensive care. Linux works well under such conditions.

Worse with the desktop. Where the user is the aministrator, not the IT guy with a high salary.

Ummm ... never mind then.

Good luck with your absolutely-non-primitive tasks on your Windows desktop posting such intelligent comments. I should have known better.

[Panix]

You guys live in your own imaginary world.

Latest financial report:

FY24 Q2 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoft

Windows alone gives more revenue than AMD has as a whole .

Maybe write to AMD first to do away with the consumer divisions because the PC desktop is worthless .

Or let them shut down entirely, since stupid Windows generates higher revenues than all their products.



Get out of your basement and walk around to several offices in companies large, small, visit your local architect, builder's office, interior decorator, order a flyer, poster, etc. See what systems they work on. There is no Linux anywhere.

Exactly. What is the % of Linux users now - talking about desktop or laptop users? Less than 5%? This site claims 3%:

https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/linux-statistics.html

It's one thing to use it for business - sure, maybe MS will have some sort of Linux-based system for the businesses running Windows - but, the typical PC idiots out there - they won't be switching to Linux anytime soon.

[torsionbar28]

About time. Is there anyone who did not see this coming?

Yup. Step 1 in the EEE strategy. In the coming years, start looking for the proprietary Microsoft-only extensions and add-ons that only work with Azure Linux.

[Kver]

For everyone saying big companies are foolish for using Azure... You're morons. Sorry.

The simple fact is, running servers at any level of scale is expensive. You need to pay for networking, personelle, experts, etc, and pray you aren't one of those unlucky companies who has a massive security gaffe because the best person you could find wasn't good enough, or the people who kept things updated got hit by a truck. Not only that, but you need to invest in extra off-site servers for up-time, keep them in sync, and pay for the networking with can be tens-of-thousands of dollars for running cable alone. It's a nightmare.

The org I work for has a mix of in-house and an increasing number of Azure servers and services. Our in-house servers are problematic, and whenever they go down it costs the organization tens-of-thousands of dollars in downtime. Not even "oh customers aren't buying shit because our website is down" because we aren't that kind of org, but tens-of-thousands of dollars in "we have hundreds of people using in-house applications to do their jobs, and when our services break we're still paying for every minute they sit idle, and we're also paying for potential overtime/delays/etc."

Guess what's rock-solid? Azure. Yeah, it might cost 5-6 figures a month, but at the same time we don't need to employ a platoon of expensive technicians and networking engineers between multiple locations. "UsE tHe PeOpLe YoU hAvE!" is a joke because they already have work to do, you might have dozens of buildings and when the servers go down you can't risk those people being on another campus replacing the network switch which fried because spiders infested it. So we're moving to maintain just the DB servers while punting the work to Azure. We also use Azure "functions" which are basically micro-apps that just work without even designating servers. "Lock in?" What's that? We have things called "exit strategies." We control our domains, we control our data, we control our code, we control our images. We could move our apps within a week. We could move 90% of our cloud infra within a month. We could offboard everything within a year. "oH bUt A yEaR yOu'Re LoCkEd In!" No, if you're actually a big org being able to do anything within a year is downright spritely. When it takes 5 tickets and three departments to change a light-bulb, moving docker images between cloud providers is more an issue of paperwork than actual technical lock-in.