> What would be the point of using microsoft's linux?
Azure. It will be like Amazon Linux, which is based on Fedora if I'm correct. I wonder what Microsoft will use, and if they choose Debian, if the Debian project will profit from it.
Furthermore, they will want better support for Ubuntu on Windows. If people don't need an Ubuntu machine to run Linux, without having to mess with Virtualbox, that will keep more people on Windows, well I guess that's what they hope.
They seem to move into a new world, where they are no longer the one superpower. SQL Server can run on Linux, just another example.
They could use it as stepping stone for businesses heavily invested on Linux or already having a mix of Linux and Windows: "we guarantee this is the best Linux distribution for compatibility with MS tech (Msad, powershell, Azure, mono etc etc)".
I don't know how appealing that is. Even from a GUI perspective, moving from Linux to Windows is such a huge step backwards.
I have to keep an eye on a whole bunch of things at work so I only run a Windows box for one or two pieces of software. This box takes up less than 25% of my screen real estate.
Every window on the Linux box is automatically placed and I usually have to put in literally no effort. On the Windows box every window is such a pain to manage. Some applications make an effort to remember where their windows were placed, but this is usually broken in some way and still does not allow me quickly switch layouts like on Linux.
The same as using Red Hat's Linux. You get a well supported environment. If you are a Linux shop but want to run on Azure then it makes sense, to me anyway, to go with the best supported OS on that platform.
I love Linux and while I also have some nagging negative thoughts about Microsoft getting so cosy with the Linux world, I also can't pretend I wouldn't be super excited to run a Microsoft Linux on my dev machine and then push to a Microsoft Linux on my Azure instances.
I don't think there is a widespread "nagging negative thoughts" about Microsoft working with Linux. That isn't where the skepticism comes from.
Azure, like all other cloud providers, fully supports and functions with all mainstream Linux distros (indeed, the Linux kernel includes a large number of kernel contributions from Microsoft, particularly around hypervisor support). When you conjecture about some synergy between your dev machine and Azure cloud machines, it makes me wonder if you are just extrapolating based on some assumptions of the platform, or if you have a real working knowledge of it.
All of this conjecture just seems bizarre. It's good that Microsoft is getting more knowledgeable about other platforms, but there is nothing at all exciting about some conceptual Microsoft Linux.
>can't pretend I wouldn't be super excited to run a Microsoft Linux on my dev machine
Seeing as MS is basically a branch of the NSA I'm not excited about that at all. I might be slightly excited if MS went open source and allowed people to include their tools in other distros, but the NSA would never allow that.
This. I would be very interested in running Microsoft Linux instead of Ubuntu on a physical dev box. With .NET Core, ASP.NET, etc. having an MS proper Linux would be great.
Something along the lines of "We officially support development with ASP.NET, .NET Core, Mono, etc. on Microsoft Linux for deployment to Azure Microsoft Linux instances".
Just to share one example - visual studio has an amazing developer experience for exploring and debugging node apps. I wonder if there's anything else out there which comes close..?
> Taking back market share from Mac users. Especially among developers.
You're assuming that if they do release a MS Linux it would be geared towards the desktop which is ludicrous. I would love if they actually replaced the Windows code base for a Unix-derived one (it doesn't have to be Linux) but that is just not going to happen. It would only make it easier for Big Software to be ported to Linux and the Mac, with Windows and Microsoft losing its competitive advantage. Not going to happen.
The same as using a lot of the other Microsoft stuff: you can pay and have someone fix $problem on a deterministic timescale. You can upgrade without having to fear your production system will come crashing down.
hollander|10 years ago
Azure. It will be like Amazon Linux, which is based on Fedora if I'm correct. I wonder what Microsoft will use, and if they choose Debian, if the Debian project will profit from it.
Furthermore, they will want better support for Ubuntu on Windows. If people don't need an Ubuntu machine to run Linux, without having to mess with Virtualbox, that will keep more people on Windows, well I guess that's what they hope.
They seem to move into a new world, where they are no longer the one superpower. SQL Server can run on Linux, just another example.
merb|10 years ago
toyg|10 years ago
vostok|10 years ago
I have to keep an eye on a whole bunch of things at work so I only run a Windows box for one or two pieces of software. This box takes up less than 25% of my screen real estate.
Every window on the Linux box is automatically placed and I usually have to put in literally no effort. On the Windows box every window is such a pain to manage. Some applications make an effort to remember where their windows were placed, but this is usually broken in some way and still does not allow me quickly switch layouts like on Linux.
bithush|10 years ago
I love Linux and while I also have some nagging negative thoughts about Microsoft getting so cosy with the Linux world, I also can't pretend I wouldn't be super excited to run a Microsoft Linux on my dev machine and then push to a Microsoft Linux on my Azure instances.
osweiller|10 years ago
Azure, like all other cloud providers, fully supports and functions with all mainstream Linux distros (indeed, the Linux kernel includes a large number of kernel contributions from Microsoft, particularly around hypervisor support). When you conjecture about some synergy between your dev machine and Azure cloud machines, it makes me wonder if you are just extrapolating based on some assumptions of the platform, or if you have a real working knowledge of it.
All of this conjecture just seems bizarre. It's good that Microsoft is getting more knowledgeable about other platforms, but there is nothing at all exciting about some conceptual Microsoft Linux.
zxcvcxz|10 years ago
Seeing as MS is basically a branch of the NSA I'm not excited about that at all. I might be slightly excited if MS went open source and allowed people to include their tools in other distros, but the NSA would never allow that.
matt_wulfeck|10 years ago
bithush|10 years ago
Something along the lines of "We officially support development with ASP.NET, .NET Core, Mono, etc. on Microsoft Linux for deployment to Azure Microsoft Linux instances".
danpeddle|10 years ago
rpgmaker|10 years ago
You're assuming that if they do release a MS Linux it would be geared towards the desktop which is ludicrous. I would love if they actually replaced the Windows code base for a Unix-derived one (it doesn't have to be Linux) but that is just not going to happen. It would only make it easier for Big Software to be ported to Linux and the Mac, with Windows and Microsoft losing its competitive advantage. Not going to happen.
revelation|10 years ago
marcosdumay|10 years ago
Really? When did MS start fixing bugs for their paying customers in a deterministic timescale?
The point about upgrades may be good, but MS has started breaking things on update recently too.
greglindahl|10 years ago
Spooky23|10 years ago
Red Hat subscriptions require that you license by socket, effectively doubling the cost for licensing on a per server basis.
If you were using Microsoft Linux, you could potentially ditch VMWare and RHEL costs.
pkaye|10 years ago