Microsoft Adds Linux Support To Endpoint Manager

[partcyborg]

Jesus christ! It is inevitable that in the future the Linux ecosystem will heavily rely on microsoft stuff to an extent where there is no way around it. Maybe not necessarily for nerds in some basement but for the value-adding sector. It is obvious that this is the point of doing all that in the first place and why would you welcome that....

Embrace, Extend, Completely-Fucked-Up

you must not have any experience with modern tech companies, especially not anything remotely large scale. If you did, you would know that microsoft has literally next to no presence there. There isn't a single problem that ms could solve in an oss hostile way to change that either. Perhaps stuff like this could help them keep a foothold in the desktop/workstation world, but that is such a vanishingly small part of linux's market share that even if it were to vanish altogether it wouldn't come anywhere near "extinguish".

Put it this way, we are a LOT closer to "the year of Linux on the desktop" than we are "the year of windows on the server" happening again.

[oiaohm]

RedHat also makes closed source software.

Yes but name one case where something that redhat releases closed source has overlapping trademark with something open source.

Microsoft you have Visual studio and Visual studio core yes these are two different products with two different source trees.
Then you have .net framework and .net core. Another case of part functionality and really independent trees.

I could just keep on going where Microsoft repeatedly has done this. These are just hey customer asked for X we make Y and then use Y to claim we have provided X. Microsoft has been doing over and over again.

Like .net core could have been the real core of .net framework if Microsoft had wished that so that you install .net core then you install the add ons of .net framework so keeping reducing the differences between platforms.

jacob the half done and bait and switch that Microsoft is doing they should be called out on. The reality is Redhat, Orcale, Google... are not doing this crap so why should Microsoft be allowed to pull these stunts..

[Sonadow]

Yes but name one case where something that redhat releases closed source has overlapping trademark with something open source.

Microsoft you have Visual studio and Visual studio core yes these are two different products with two different source trees.
Then you have .net framework and .net core. Another case of part functionality and really independent trees.

I could just keep on going where Microsoft repeatedly has done this. These are just hey customer asked for X we make Y and then use Y to claim we have provided X. Microsoft has been doing over and over again.

Like .net core could have been the real core of .net framework if Microsoft had wished that so that you install .net core then you install the add ons of .net framework so keeping reducing the differences between platforms.

jacob the half done and bait and switch that Microsoft is doing they should be called out on. The reality is Redhat, Orcale, Google... are not doing this crap so why should Microsoft be allowed to pull these stunts..

Microsoft has every right to do whatever the hell they want to do with their technologies.

Linux users who never pay Microsoft a single cent for anything they produce have no business making demands for Microsoft to do anything more.

[oiaohm]

Microsoft has every right to do whatever the hell they want to do with their technologies.

No this is not true there is such a thing as deceptive advertising and product branding. Lot of ways Microsoft is branding stuff is well and truly in this camp. Legally you don't have the right to do whatever the hell they like with their technologies. There are legal limits on what Microsoft is allowed to-do. The historic samba case against Microsoft demoed some of these legal limitations.

Of course Microsoft is going to ignore these legal limitations as long as they can. But at some point Microsoft is likely to get pulled up.

Linux users who never pay Microsoft a single cent for anything they produce have no business making demands for Microsoft to do anything more.

When the parties who were asking for full visual studio on Linux they were in fact wanting to pay. Remember all Microsoft has given them is Visual studio core that they cannot pay for. So this is a two to tango. So I would not be so quick to say that Linux Users have no business making demards particularly when some of those Linux users were in fact windows users using Visual studio who wanted full visual studio on Linux so that when they transfered projects across thihgs did not break.

Sonadow you presumed incorrectly that Linux users are not Windows users are well. There are quite a few users who are both Linux and Windows. The issues caused by the double up of stuff causes them trouble.

[jacob]

Yes but name one case where something that redhat releases closed source has overlapping trademark with something open source.

Microsoft you have Visual studio and Visual studio core yes these are two different products with two different source trees.
Then you have .net framework and .net core. Another case of part functionality and really independent trees.

I could just keep on going where Microsoft repeatedly has done this. These are just hey customer asked for X we make Y and then use Y to claim we have provided X. Microsoft has been doing over and over again.

Like .net core could have been the real core of .net framework if Microsoft had wished that so that you install .net core then you install the add ons of .net framework so keeping reducing the differences between platforms.

jacob the half done and bait and switch that Microsoft is doing they should be called out on. The reality is Redhat, Orcale, Google... are not doing this crap so why should Microsoft be allowed to pull these stunts..

That's actually a very common practice. There are countless projects that are dual licenced, open source, available under a GPL or similar licence under a trademarked name, and also offered under the same name as a restricted proprietary product (or SAAS). Qt does this to begin with. That MS offers Visual Studio Code as open source and not Visual Studio isn't deliberately aimed against FOSS or Linux, the exact same VSCode is available under the exact same terms for Windows; it's arguably confusing why they call it Visual Studio but I guess it's their trademark associated with IDEs and development tools (like their compiler is called Visual Studio C++). There is even bizarre name appropriation within the open source world; for example Gnucash is so called even though it has no association of any kind with the GNU project or the FSF.

I just feel that there is a lot of hysteria going on the moment someone pronounces the word Microsoft. I suppose it's partly because of the oldtimers (I count myself in there) who initially embraced Linux as a form of "resistance" against Microsoft. I did that too but I dare say I've grown up. I'm still uncompromising when it comes to freedom and open source, but the point is the freedom and not the names or Microsoft in particular. MS tried their EEE strategy and for the most part it failed (the SCO affair destroyed SCO but didn't harm Linux, IE didn't succeed in making the web proprietary and closed, the WMA/WMV codecs and formats barely made a dent in the multimedia area). Today's Microsoft is a different beast than under Gates and Ballmer, I see it much less dangerous than Google or Facebook and the truth is that they have been involved in many FOSS projects through the years (Linux, GHC, IronPython, IronRuby, Mono etc), they have been releasing their own open source software, they've got their own licence that the FSF itself recognises as Free Software, and the sky hasn't fallen. Linus doesn't pull punches when it comes to less-than-great kernel contributors but he's on record that the cooperation with MS devs is seamless. Ultimately, what's the problem: are we happy that MS does open source too, or do we want to ostracise them to ensure that keep everything proprietary and hostile to FOSS?

[Delgarde]

@CochainComplex
Microsoft profits because they can integrate this into one of their Azure dashboards. Their Azure services are the prime business right now, and most of these services run on Linux.

Exactly. In the past, Microsoft tried to kill Linux because it was a threat. Today, they have no interest in killing it, because it's become one of their biggest revenue sources. And that doesn't mean that they've become nice, but they've become a big contributor to Linux and open source because it's currently in their best interests to do so. Playing well with others has become more profitable for them than not doing so.

[CochainComplex]

Microsoft has every right to do whatever the hell they want to do with their technologies.

Linux users who never pay Microsoft a single cent for anything they produce have no business making demands for Microsoft to do anything more.

Its like your best friend always joining the party but never contribute to the bill. You would not demand him to contribute to the bill if he wouldn't have joined.

So MS has joined the Linux FOSS party but never pays a round or in rare cases only during happy hour with the cheapest available drink in the smallest orderable quantity iwith a bragging salesmanfashion to look generous (extFAT).

With this attitude the concept of FOSS is obsolete.

[skeevy420]

But this are the topics where they can not profit from Linux "support".

Depends on how you look at it. For example, I'm into flying games and it seems like most all sim hardware requires Windows to configure and program the hardware and, from there, any OS will work with it. If I were to buy a flight yoke I'd really consider the Xbox branded one over something like the Honeycomb Alpha if I thought that Xbox/Microsoft branding would translate over to better non-Windows support (it already does in regards to Xbox support). I've spent more than I care to admit this year on flight sim hardware and software and I know that other Linux gamers are like myself in that they'll spend more money than the average person on their hobbies.

I'm kind of hoping that the Steam Deck or the OS will force Microsoft's hand in regards to Linux gaming support. People like to give MS a lot of flack, but, at least for gaming, they're one of the best companies around for crossplatform. They're already going out of their way to make it easier for us to play with each other so it isn't that big of a stretch for them to make their software run on more platforms; especially since Microsoft of all companies knows software is a service and that more people can use that service when it isn't coupled to a specific platform. Linux support also means Stadia support and licensing to get that Alphabet money.

I can't wait for that Steam Deck OS to be released. Probably gonna switch my Arch Linux install over to it. Hopefully I'll be able to cheat and do some bullshit like swap some mirrors in pacman.conf.

[jacob]

Playing well with others has become more profitable for them than not doing so.

Isn't this the absolutely best outcome imaginable?

[jacob]

Its like your best friend always joining the party but never contribute to the bill. You would not demand him to contribute to the bill if he wouldn't have joined.

So MS has joined the Linux FOSS party but never pays a round or in rare cases only during happy hour with the cheapest available drink in the smallest orderable quantity iwith a bragging salesmanfashion to look generous (extFAT).

With this attitude the concept of FOSS is obsolete.

I always find it ironic when people who never contributed anything and only whine on forums smugly accuse organisations who actually employ open source developers (among other things) of not being sufficiently supportive of open source.