Microsoft Loves Linux

[eggbert]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/20245..._we_love_linux

Well, they are contributing to the kernel, and now they're saying it runs great on their azure cloud platform. I think i have entered bizzarro world.

Really though, I am not sure I would trust running Linux on top of a Microsoft product. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it would be kind of like putting a chicken coop on top of a fox den.

It's clear they feel threatend by it, especially in the "cloud" realm. Look at what they've done with Windows Server... Now there's a GUI-less "Windows Server Core", since it would be wasteful to deploy a full blown GUI to a bunch of cloud instances. Linux shines here, and they know it.

[woodsmoke]

And if Linux ever actually "takes off" in big box stores, MS can have a Linux that they charge for because they have enhanced it. Best of all worlds for MS because the average buyer wouldn't know the difference between BSD and a MS Linux especially if the MS linux uses "windows" that are big cludzy boxes like is on their smart phone. By the time it "might happen" touch screens will probably be as cheap as a big screen monitor is now.

Even though a LOT of people don't like Unity, Canonical has to do something to get into the playing field now and not ten years from now. And, even though I do not like Unity I give them props for trying SOMEthing, ANYthing to get into the playing field.

It is either them or Fedora at this stage that has the possible bucks to do it....

But...wait... there is that tablet......that is running what kind of plasma desktop?


woodsmoke

[oshunluvr]

Fedora is paying MS for UEFI securekeys rather than defending the open market in court. They need to die right along microslop.

[SteveRiley]

No, Fedora is paying Verisign a one-time fee to obtain a signing key. Fedora can then use this to sign their software, thus allowing the operation of hardware that can't contain a key from more than one authority.

[SteveRiley]

Well, they are contributing to the kernel, and now they're saying it runs great on their azure cloud platform. I think i have entered bizzarro world.

And they're in the top 20 contributors! But only because they contributed bad code, and then had to fix it with many more commits. But if you count not the number of commits but instead lines of code, their contribution ranking falls.

Really though, I am not sure I would trust running Linux on top of a Microsoft product. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it would be kind of like putting a chicken coop on top of a fox den.

Hyper-V is actually a pretty decent hypervisor. It isn't the fastest-performing one, but by design it presents a much smaller attack surface than, say, ESX, with all of its hooks for third-party code.

It's clear they feel threatend by it, especially in the "cloud" realm. Look at what they've done with Windows Server... Now there's a GUI-less "Windows Server Core", since it would be wasteful to deploy a full blown GUI to a bunch of cloud instances. Linux shines here, and they know it.

Exactly. Organizationally, Windows Azure has much autonomy from "legacy" Microsoft. If they can build a successful business that attracts enterprise customers who need production Linux in a high-quality enterprise-grade cloud, that's great! Amazon Web Services needs some serious competition

[SecretCode]

attack surface

Good name for a band (although perhaps not a British-style brass band).

[SteveRiley]

Good name for a band

For the feature act, definitely. The headliner would be "Vulnerability Landscape." And to wind down the evening, we'd enjoy the sonorous [strike]tones[/strike] monotony of "Mitigation Strategies." ... *KLUNK* sorry, that was my head hitting the table as I drifted into momentary stupor/slumber.

(although perhaps not a British-style brass band).

I love it when people pay attention to details!

[oshunluvr]

No, Fedora is paying Verisign a one-time fee to obtain a signing key. Fedora can then use this to sign their software, thus allowing the operation of hardware that can't contain a key from more than one authority.

I stand corrected, however I still don't like it. MS started this process and controls it. I don't trust MS with anything and they're at the wheel of this ship...

[SteveRiley]

I still don't like it. MS started this process and controls it. I don't trust MS with anything and they're at the wheel of this ship...

I am in complete agreement with you regarding the restrictions placed around secure boot: it's simply too amenable to abuse, and the people in charge have a history of such abuse. I worry.