Microsoft Adds Linux Support To Endpoint Manager

[pal666]

RedHat also makes closed source software.

no, it doesn't

[oiaohm]

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.

Notice what you said here is dual license source. Where both sides are in fact the same thing or at least has common code. This is not true with .net fact. You can run tests that show that that .net core and the .net framework .net engine are in fact different in major ways.

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++).

No you have mistakes Microsoft C++ compiler is called "Microsoft Visual C++ (MSVC)". Visual Studio C++ is refering to the Visual Studio IDE generated C++.

Visual Code would have been valid. Visual Studio xxx histrically have been names of parts inside Visual Studio.

This is also missing history when Visual studio code released developers were asking for Visual studio the same one that was on windows to be ported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio

Yes do notice the 5 lists products other than Visual Studio itself. That right 4 of them plug into Visual Studio. Visual Studio code is the really I don't fit here. Visual Studio code is not a plugin into Visual Studio and its not part of Visual Studio.

Like it or not this is truly abuse of trademake. Calling it visual studio code allows Microsoft when someone asks for Visual studio on Linux say use Visual studio code. Be aware those people are not asking for Visual studio code they want the standard visual studio.

This is not FOSS people asking for this. The reality here is different Microsoft people are using Visual Studio Code as basically a bait and switch. Users baited in with Visual studio on windows then when they have to work on Linux they have to use Visual Studio Code. Of course then Microsoft says you will use WSL with windows if you wish to use full visual studio with Linux.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/build-and-debug-c-with-wsl-2-distributions-and-visual-studio-2022/

Reality here jacob Microsoft wants to keep Visual Studio the full product bound to windows to force more Windows sales. Yes Visual Studio Code fits into this so that people cannot keep on asking for Visual Studio the main program to be ported.

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.

Case of a lot these is not knowing history. http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnucash.README Gnucash in fact started as GNU Project. Yes Gnucash sources use to come from gnu.org. Due to splitting ways with GNU project under good terms and agreeing to remain under GPL license Gnucash were not forced to re-brand. So your statement of no association of any kind with the GNU project is not in fact true there is a historic association and a agreement at time Gnucash split away from the GNU project that Gnucash have to uphold. You would call Gnucash a very distant associate of the GNU project and they are still required to uphold their agreement with GNU project. Lets say in future Gnucash wanted to re-license to not use GPL license they would also have to rebrand without the Gnu bit in their name.

The reality here is name appropriation is rare in the open source world. There are quite a few cases of distant associates where there is agreement so they can keep their trademark

[Delgarde]

Isn't this the absolutely best outcome imaginable?

As long as it lasts, certainly. I mean, they're not perfect — my sense is that they're now comfortable using and contributing to open-source projects, but recent dramas around .NET suggest that they're not so comfortable running such a project, and the relinquishing of absolute control that comes with it. But the situation today is much happier for all parties than back when Ballmer talked about open-source as a cancer that needed to be destroyed.

[jacob]

As long as it lasts, certainly. I mean, they're not perfect — my sense is that they're now comfortable using and contributing to open-source projects, but recent dramas around .NET suggest that they're not so comfortable running such a project, and the relinquishing of absolute control that comes with it. But the situation today is much happier for all parties than back when Ballmer talked about open-source as a cancer that needed to be destroyed.

That's my point exactly. MS is not an actual open-source company and may never be, but like most technology companies, they now contribute to open source to varying degrees in ways that suits them. This is a good thing. If Microsoft thinks that using and contributing to FOSS is more advantageous than being hostile, all the better for Microsoft and for FOSS alike.

[BesiegedAce]

There has been a lot if Microsoft news on Phoronix in the last week or two and the EEE crowd has been silent.

It wasn't long ago that Microsoft news produced dozens of replies of a particular nature.

Looking at the replies in this thread, I feel like your optimism was misplaced. Maybe one day they'll stop crying wolf over every single thing.

[CochainComplex]

Reality here jacob Microsoft wants to keep Visual Studio the full product bound to windows to force more Windows sales. Yes Visual Studio Code fits into this so that people cannot keep on asking for Visual Studio the main program to be ported.

You could easily replace Visual Studio Code by DirectX, MS Office.. and this sentences would be still true.

[CochainComplex]

You say you contribute some code or bug reports - good on you, it's more than what most people do. However I doubt that you contribute as much as the army of FOSS developers employed by Microsoft. (*)

You donate money - also good on you. Microsoft is a paid up member of the Linux Foundation among many other things (they also contributed money to OpenSSH at least once, they are a paid up member of Rust Foundation etc etc), how do you compare? (*)

(*) to be clear: I don't imagine or expect that you or any other individual would have financial or code contributions remotely comparable to those of a megacorp like Microsoft. But by the very same token, it's very disingenuous to claim that you contribute some money to open source, yet dismiss an org with contributions that are many orders of magnitude larger than yours as illegitimate or unworthy of recognition. That's the point I was making.

Ok, since when was it ever practical to compare one person with a corporate entity aka an army of people?
Lets do some statistics math and normalize it.

2020 MS made 61 Billions$ Profit
2019 avg US Salary around 71k$

Linux Foundation Gold Membership 500k$ p.a.
So MS donated 0,000819672% of their Income to the Linux Foundation.
An equal of ~0.60$ p.a. for the average US Citizen.

If I use the same calculation on my income, I have donated at least a few hundred times more. Every Premium Member here is donating more to the FOSS ecosystem....

Besides FOSS was established to get rid of the "here swallow and pay" culture of Software ecosystems. It was the power a few voluntary and it is still the spirit.

You buy Steam games - I'm not sure how buying proprietary software running on a DRM-laden platform counts as a FOSS contribution.

Quid pro quo. Valves is the only larger cooperation helping to push Linux Gaming. Ubisoft, EA etc are not even releasing one of their DRM spreader for Linux. ..And I'm not aware of Indigames in the store of EA, Ubi ...?

You "spread the word" - Here I watch you spreading the word by acting as a self-appointed judge of who is worthy to participate in the FOSS ecosystem, with double standards to say the least. Basically if your word was to be followed then Microsoft would be locked out of open source and sent back to exclusively proprietary. I don't regard that as a positive contribution at all.

Yes, I do judge in the sense of free speech. I'm not a kernel maintainer rejecting contributions.
Even if I would be a Kernel maintainer there is no rule allowing me denying MS patches - Why should I?

But morally and ethically I condem their behaviour. These are two separate topics.

Besides what is your Part in the FOSS game?

[CochainComplex]

The raison d'etre of a car producer is to produce cars, it's not (and shouldn't be) to act as a self-appointed environmental protection agency. Similarly the goal of a software producer is to sell software. When they can achieve that by making a certain portion of that software open source, all the better, just like it's better if cars can be made to cause less pollution.

By saying "MS Loves Linux" it is doing this.

You profit from MS's contributions if you run Linux on a Hyper-V platform, including on Azure.
You profit if you are a software developer who uses Visual Studio Code.
You profit if you host any code on Github, or every time you use any software whose development is hosted on Github.
You profit if you develop in Rust, Haskell or C#, or if you use any software written in those languages. (this includes GNOME and KDE who depend on librsvg, which is now mostly rewritten in Rust).
You profit if you use Powershell, (although to be fair I personally haven't seen anyone using it on Linux yet)
Etc.

90% of this are payed services. Or they have been bought by ms and monetarized.
e.g. What was MS contribution to git when Linus came up with the idea?
Btw at work we host our own Git lab instance...

Powershell ...on Linux? really?

Huawei is also financing Rust. Should we appreciate the "business practices" of the communist party of China?

To be honest this sounds like MS Marketing stuff. I don't get how someone Living the Linux ecosystem is really profiting of it.

Yes, Microsoft's contributions usually don't directly affect home users or players of AAA games. That doesn't mean they aren't important or appreciated: as I repeated many times, I much prefer to see companies (including Microsoft) to generate massive income from open source than from proprietary software.

And yes, Microsoft also simultaneously does many other things that hamper open source, just like Google, RedHat, Valve etc.

To be honest they should do - considering how harming they had been in the past.

You have thrownin Google - I don't like them ether. But OS and Browser their core Softwareproducts are full FOSS and can be forked if you don't like e.g. the datacollecting...name me one MS product.

In the real world you only profit of MS FOSS contributions if you are on a MS platform otherwise it is a blow smoke strategy.

[CochainComplex]

Looking at the replies in this thread, I feel like your optimism was misplaced. Maybe one day they'll stop crying wolf over every single thing.

I will stop crying once MS opens DirectX for Linux or at least I can buy MS Office for Linux.

[oiaohm]

That's my point exactly. MS is not an actual open-source company and may never be, but like most technology companies, they now contribute to open source to varying degrees in ways that suits them. This is a good thing. If Microsoft thinks that using and contributing to FOSS is more advantageous than being hostile, all the better for Microsoft and for FOSS alike.

Yes the fact Microsoft is not a open source company has to be taken into account. Contributing to FOSS by a company because it is more advantageous this does not mean its not a hostile act. You have the big bad presume that contributing cannot be a hostile act.

Remember the tripple E
Embrace, Extended and Extinguish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the "simple" standard.
Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

This is straight from the Microsoft playbook jacob. Yes I love Linux is Phase 1 of the EEE. Yes Microsoft loves calling Extinguish Innovate. Remember Extend stage of tripple E can be contribute features that only work on Windows and having the simple common standard flawed on windows when you don't use the Extends. Extend stage you need to be watching what Microsoft is contributing.

Is Microsoft with rust pushing cross platform nature of rust forwards the answer is no. Is Microsoft extending rust with more and more Windows only things answer is yes.

There are a lot of cases where Microsoft is truly doing Extend by submitting to open source projects and in Extend in ways that conformed to the EEE process.

Reality here jacob Microsoft wants to keep Visual Studio the full product bound to windows to force more Windows sales. Yes Visual Studio Code fits into this so that people cannot keep on asking for Visual Studio the main program to be ported.

You could easily replace Visual Studio Code by DirectX, MS Office.. and this sentences would be still true.

Direct X with the way Direct X for Linux is being done is important.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directx-heart-linux/

Perfect example of Extend from Microsoft playbook. Microsoft says here is Direct X for Linux but it only works if you are using WSL or equal where Linux is running on top of Windows.

Yes Visual studio code by design has interoperability problems with Visual Studio projects. So here they made their own broken competitor.

Reality here Microsoft has done different presentations over years with different ways of wording EEE some of them quite recent as in the last 12 months. The culture of EEE is not dead inside Microsoft. Microsoft has not completely turned over a new leaf yet.

Accepting code from Microsoft and trusting Microsoft are two different things. Reality here Microsoft still does a lot things that don't read trustworthy. Please remember Microsoft is a very big company they had the culture of EEE for very long time. Some people inside Microsoft now may be very open source friendly but its foolishness to think they all are. Large Company culture does not change quickly and is more a 30-40 year process.

Like it or not people like me are hard on Microsoft because they have not really stopped doing actions

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
This is not really a quote from Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi once observed that every movement goes through four stages: First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you win.
This first step away from Gandhi book. Progressive small errors over time can completely change something. Do note the two bits in the middle have changed. Both of the middle of Gandhi book is they fight you just fight you in different ways. Extend of triple EEE has more than 1 way to-do it.

Also note the directx heart linux being the I love Linux heart and it being used for technology that is not universally usable on Linux.

jacob like or not Microsoft for the complete time they have been like we love Linux they have been doing EEE extend actions and not even very hidden either. Please note I am not saying we should not work with Microsoft at all. Just Microsoft by action cannot be 100 percent trusted to-do the right thing. There will be times Microsoft will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing by upstreams refusing to take different patches from Microsoft.