"Microsoft Wants To Create A Complete Virtualization Stack With Linux"

[starshipeleven]

You are right this is not EEE but a different strategy like FFSSM (Fake friends Sneaky snake move):

Cut this juvenile crap. Most corporations that contribute do Linux development don't do it because they are "best friends forever", but because they profit from Linux in one way or another. It's more similar to an alliance, and Microsoft is no different.

Do things that make it seem like were friends

Uhm, no they don't? They aren't sponsoring Linux development, they are adding support for their own products in Linux, and adding features they want to use in their own products, which may or may not matter for others. That's an obvious interest in making profit on Linux here, not "friendship".

Best friend where is fat32/exfat/ntfs source and free use for everyone, oh not a have to do that situation.

There is no profit in providing a driver for fat32/exfat/ntfs to Linux, besides, with Paragon stepping up and trying to upstream their ntfs driver the situation should be covered already.

[duby229]

You are right this is not EEE but a different strategy like FFSSM (Fake friends Sneaky snake move):

Do things that make it seem like were friends but actually only do thing because they have to do it.
Like running linux on azure, wow we are best friends. The reality is no one wanted to run microsoft oses so instead of die they had to let people run linux.
Best friend where is fat32/exfat/ntfs source and free use for everyone, oh not a have to do that situation.

MS's actions here are almost definitely a part of their much larger EEE scheme to kill linux. So while these actions alone may not seem to be EEE, they in fact just peices of a grander scheme to kill linux.

I'm just stating my own opinion. I could post facts about what I believe MS grander scheme really is, but then I'd have to get a fuckin fire house to spray at starshipeleven just to cool his retarded attitude off.

[bridgman]

The root partition in the context of the Microsoft Hypervisor is similar to Xeon's Dom0 that is used for starting and managing the unprivileged domains in turn.

Guessing this should say "Xen's Dom0" ?

[Spacefish]

So how much code is in the Microkernel Hyper-V Hypervisor, and can we write a Open Source version of it, license it MIT and let Oracle release it as a product?!

[jacob]

I think this is entirely a reaction to market conditions, and as soon as the market changes or Microsoft devises a business model that makes proprietary options more profitable, they will shift away.

Now, it's still completely fine to praise, use, and even contribute to their current open source projects. The fact that they can shift away in the future doesn't mean they can destroy the stuff they already released.

But this move to open source is not, "Microsoft has decided to be less evil", just, "Microsoft realized open source would be more profitable, for the moment."

This is exactly the same as IBM, Google etc... even RedHat or SUSE. Corporations are there to make money, not to support some tech because they love it. Microsoft was singularly evil towards open source back in the day of Gates & Ballmer with their "Halloween Documents" strategy and the SCO affair they orchestrated in the backstage, but that's not the case today. I would say MS is overall a good neighbour to Linux and a fine FOSS community member. Of course they do it for their own profit, but can you show me a single for-profit company operating in the FOSS-Linux ecosystem that is different in that regard?

[Michael_S]

This is exactly the same as IBM, Google etc... even RedHat or SUSE. Corporations are there to make money, not to support some tech because they love it. Microsoft was singularly evil towards open source back in the day of Gates & Ballmer with their "Halloween Documents" strategy and the SCO affair they orchestrated in the backstage, but that's not the case today. I would say MS is overall a good neighbour to Linux and a fine FOSS community member. Of course they do it for their own profit, but can you show me a single for-profit company operating in the FOSS-Linux ecosystem that is different in that regard?

I think we're saying the same things, you're just more satisfied with the status quo than I am. All major corporations have the same core philosophy, "We won't stab you in the back unless it's profitable." You can't ever let your guard down with any of them.

[jacob]

I think we're saying the same things, you're just more satisfied with the status quo than I am. All major corporations have the same core philosophy, "We won't stab you in the back unless it's profitable." You can't ever let your guard down with any of them.

I wouldn't put it in terms of being satisfied or dissatisfied. I would simply say I'm probably more optimistic. The GPL and the FOSS ecosystem have proven to be strong and resilient against attacks. SCO tried to destroy Linux but in their jihad they only killed themselves and no-one else. Microsoft may have been evil but unlike SCO they are certainly not stupid, and besides, they have chosen the only sensible course of action, which is to realise that FOSS is here to stay and given that fact, they might just as well look for a way to benefit from it. Today Microsoft is making megabucks from Linux and trying to sabotage it is probably the last thing they would want to do.

[Michael_S]

I wouldn't put it in terms of being satisfied or dissatisfied. I would simply say I'm probably more optimistic. The GPL and the FOSS ecosystem have proven to be strong and resilient against attacks. SCO tried to destroy Linux but in their jihad they only killed themselves and no-one else. Microsoft may have been evil but unlike SCO they are certainly not stupid, and besides, they have chosen the only sensible course of action, which is to realise that FOSS is here to stay and given that fact, they might just as well look for a way to benefit from it. Today Microsoft is making megabucks from Linux and trying to sabotage it is probably the last thing they would want to do.

Linux and open source have won on the server side. It has lost on the consumer side and will never win, because there's too much money to be made by locking down consumer operating systems and promoting planned obsolescence.

[jacob]

Linux and open source have won on the server side. It has lost on the consumer side and will never win, because there's too much money to be made by locking down consumer operating systems and promoting planned obsolescence.

The world's most popular consumer OS is Android, so Linux as a tech has won there too. Of course no-one uses Android because of open source, and almost all Android devices are effectively "tivoised" and can't really be used as open source. But the problem IMO is not money, it's the fact that Android aside, there is simply no consumer or desktop-grade open source OS that's really, 100% ready. Ubuntu, Fedora, PureOS etc. are 90% there but that last 10% proverbially takes 90% of the effort.

The truth is what Linus has said long ago but many seem to refuse to understand it: a server OS is the easy part. A desktop or mobile OS is far more difficult to design and develop. But a significant part of the community still cherishes the idea that desktop computing and end user-facing applications (not web based) are somehow inferior and less worthy.

[Jabberwocky]

Sorry what? Afaik you can enable nested virtualization on Win10 as long as it received the Win10 Anniversary update (an update it received in 2016).
Maybe you have an AMD system? Because they only recently added the ability to run nested virtualization on AMD systems to Win10 and Winserver. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/...t/ba-p/1434841
And that was a Hyper-V limitation, not a businness decision. Not even Winserver could do nested virtualization on Ryzen/Epyc before this update.

They also have provided an unlimited GUI-less Hyper-V server version since the beginning https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/eval...-v-server-2019

I hope you're right about this. The reason why I said what I did was because I got an error dialog that stated that hyperv could not run nested outside of hyperv. I was sure it's a policy since it was detecting that hyperv was running in a virtualized environment which was not hyperv and choose not to run because of that. I was running the VM with "kvm64" CPU model tested under Windows 1803, 1809, and 1903.

I ran it on my Ryzen 2700X and when I tried host-passthrough, host-model or epyc windows ran at 100% CPU usage on all cores. This time around I agree that looked like a bug or unsupported cpu model. What was strange is that many of the bug reports said that it worked in previous versions of windows. I was using Windows 1809 and Linux 5.6 at the time.

I have switched to Linux 5.8 since then and Windows has switched itself to 2004. I'll try it again and collect more proof along the way.