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.
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.
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.
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.
As for dev machine/cloud machine conjecture, I just mean I would like to have a consistent experience between what I develop on and what I deploy too. It isn't a huge deal, just nice to have more than anything.
I develop on Windows, mostly. I deploy to Ubuntu, Redhat, Amazon's AMI, among others. I literally will repeat that you sound like you know nothing about Linux, cloud providers, or Microsoft's play in this market.
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.
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".
However there are businesses out there who like to work in a single vendor system as much as they can. I have no doubt that Microsoft will come out with their own Linux distro in the next 2-3 years. They don't need too, but they also didn't need to do lots of the things they have done recently.
I feel like I've accidentally stumbled upon some internal discussion group of Microsoft's where very low level employees who completely misunderstand the market give their Microsoft-centric view of the world.
I am assuming you believe Microsoft will not be venturing into the world of building their own Linux distribution?
What you're describing will never happen. MS wants to keep .NET/etc development easiest on Windows. They have no incentive or plans to deliver the same support for developers on Linux as they do for devs on Windows.
Any true "linux distro" released by MS will have gimped out tools. If they ship windows with a Linux ABI ("Ubuntu + Windows") so you have MS support, then it's never going to be proper Linux.
I don't see how anything MS is doing really helps Linux. If they were really pro-Linux they'd make a commitment to supporting it 100% by making 100% of their development software compatible with Linux.
Just more extending for the purpose of extinguishing. I have no reason to believe otherwise because MS has not inspired confidence in me. All the tools they've open sourced or released on Linux are half assed. A billion dollar company like MS can make good software for Linux that isn't gimped, they just choose not to do so because they prefer that Windows remains a more viable platform for people who use their tools.
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.
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.
You open up a crit sit that is tagged as a product defect and they will turn fixes around quickly.
If you are strategic to them, they'll fly in people.
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.