Hacker News Reader

Comment by bomdo | Hacker News Reader

Apparently, being a platinum member entails donating $500k [1], so it's not that big a deal for Microsoft ($85B revenue[2]). And as the article states, there has been negativity in the linux community regarding the old arch-enemy joining their ranks. Looking at the new Microsoft however, I think it's fair to assume that the days of "embrace, extend and extinguish"[3] are over and they are genuinely interested in cooperation.

It's an important political gesture that Nadella goes in this direction. Since they also added a linux subsystem into the latest Windows release[4], I get the impression that he wants to leave the cloud to linux and try to position Windows as a user-facing client. This is a difficult decision to make, but it makes sense. Microsoft without Ballmer is seeing its position in the Corporate world as it is and I hope we will continue to see more openness as a result.

[1] http://www.slashgear.com/hp-pays-500000-for-linux-foundation...

[2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2016-Q4...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12234735

View on HN

Half the HN frontpage right now is MS articles. Seems oddly coincidental.

We can't forget about the bad MS is still doing: forced Win10 upgrades, Win10 spyware, Android patent extortion, FAT/VFAT/exFAT patent suits and licenses, etc.

The developer arm seems to be working hard, which is commendable. But looking at the rest of the org, this just seems like another Embrace round of the EEE cycle.

It's not "oddly coincidental", it's Microsoft's developer conference today, which is where the announcement was made. During WWDC and I/O the front page is filled with Apple and Google news too.

Comparing to Apple, Microsoft seems to be getting more attention to their news, which is a praiseworthy change.

well since steve jobs died there wasn't anything noteworthy. I mean seriously, was there any new device or and WORTHY feature? I can't think of any. And old devices like the mac series or others weren't overhauled with something that made it more interesting. I mean everything since then was the touchbar from mac, which many weren't seeing as that feature, they basically removed more than they added noteworthy stuff. That's why they probably will suffer soon. They need a leader to bring them forward and not a businessman.

Yes, sadly MSFT PR drones invaded HN since BUILD 2015. They are worse than the were during Ballmer days, their current CEO is bad for end consumers, the spyware in W10 and many other shady actions like forcing DRM EFI are very bad. Who (developer) in the right mind would fall again for their shit? Only noobs fall for them - you will get burned sooner or later, remember that. Their software aren't a good fit for startups, so why are they fearured on HN nowadays? Usually you don't want to burn your money on software licenses, or you will fall like MySpace. Read PG articles.

> We can't forget about the bad MS is still doing

This.

It doesn't take much skepticism to suspect MS has the ultimate agenda of eliminating all things Linux (as it exists today).

You're right, it doesn't take much skepticism, because that sort of conspiracy theorising is basically the opposite of skepticism, it's uncritical thinking.

Let's wait for Linux Millenium Edition

Well, we did already get 3.11 "Linux For Workgroups"[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names

> being a platinum member entails donating $500k

HP's donation isn't necessary Microsoft's

> so it's not that big a deal for Microsoft

So what? It's a big deal for the Linux Foundation. And that's what matters. It's not about everyone paying "their fair share". It's about ensuring a good future for the high-quality very popular open source OS Linux. The circumstances of the donor doesn't affect the efficacy of their donation.

I hope we focus more on the outcome than the drama.

Linux is a kernel, not an OS, and Microsoft has been abjectly hostile to the OSes that use Linux and respect user freedoms.

If they weren't, they would have never pushed hostile proprietary vendor lock in tech like DirectX12 or Universal Windows Platform in recent years.

(1) That's hair splitting of common usage. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

"Linux was originally developed as a free operating system for personal computers based on the Intel x86 architecture"

"Linux has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems."

"Linux is not the only such operating system"

"Linux is also the leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems"

I'm surprised you didn't distinguish it as an OS kernel, instead of leaving it ambiguous as to what kind of kernel it is, e.g. popcorn.

(2) The opposite is true. For example, Ubuntu user-space (i.e. sans Linux kernel) is available on Windows.

> (1) That's hair splitting of common usage.

The operating system's technical name is GNU/Linux[1]. Many people call it Linux incorrectly, but it is actually a serious distinction[2]. I would agree however that Linux is the most widely used OS kernel.

To make the distinction more obvious, can you explain what the difference is between "Linux" and Android (which uses the Linux kernel). [ Hint: the difference is that Android doesn't contain GNU. ]

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

Linux is a class of operating systems which use the Linux kernel. Referring to Linux as an OS, is a perfectly fine thing to generically mean 'an OS which uses Linux as a kernel' and has an agreed common meaning.

Almost no Operating System is precisely GNU/Linux - most have vim, an X server, GNOME or KDE, 7zip etc. And the argument that GNU is a more principal argument is incorrect.

Uhm, you're saying GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, isn't GNU?

GNOME is developed by the GNOME project, which as far as I can tell isn't actually part of the FSF.

I don't considered everything licensed under the GNU license, or formerly associated with the GNU project / FSF to be 'GNU'.

Even more hair splitting here. Your arguments would matter in court but in general I think it is fairly easy to understand what a user means when he says Linux. For example I say Android is based on Linux.

Except that is exactly the terminology fudging that makes the conversation opaque. Android uses a forked Linux kernel, and uses none of the GNU toolchain that appears on Linux distributions. Android is based on Linux, but not GNU/Linux, and if you use just Linux as an interchangeable term for both kernel and OS including user-space, you could have gotten away with that a decade ago, but today there are enough divergent systems using Linux and not the GNU system that the distinction is required to make sense.

Android patches had been merged into upstream a few years ago [1], so its kernel is actually Linux now, not a fork.

[1] https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.3#head-b733d694037e0b34ad4...

Alpine doesn't use GNU by default. And it would fit into what I call "Linux".

The "operating system" is not "technically" "GNU/Linux" - that's just what Richard Stallman wants it to be.

Stallman wants the definition of "operating system" to be the fully usable system. In which case Linux won't work. You need GNU coreutils. But you need a lot of other things too, why are the other things omitted from the naming?

Windows on the other hand is clearly an "operating system." Does this mean that the OS is "Ubuntu" or "Alpine"? Or are they just distributions still? In this case GNU/Linux is still not the OS.

Dennis Ritchie once referred to the kernel as "the operating system proper", albeit when describing various parts of unix (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVQTPbD6UY#t=1m28s). I think Ritchie's opinion is much more valid than Stallman's. [edit: this doesn't prove that the operating system is just the kernel, but that it's not far fetched to refer to the kernel as an operating system, or in that case to refer to an operating system by the kernel]

The short of it is that when people say that Linux is an operating system, perhaps they mean "a family of operating systems based on the same kernel" but that's a mouthful. And since most people would include things like Alpine in there when they say "linux", they clearly arent just referring to GNU/Linux. Thats one of those things where "Windows 10" is a different version of "Windows" than "Windows 8" because the bundled user space is different... but theyre both "Windows". If something requires Windows 10, I can say "requires windows 10". If it just generically works on windows 3.11 until present, I can say "works on windwos". "Alpine" is a version of "Linux", and so is "Ubuntu". Ubuntu just also happens to fall under "GNU/Linux". If something requires GNU, i can say "requires Linux with GNU" and otherwise "requires Linux" is absolutely correct. If something requires a specific distro, then you can specify that, otherwise you go for the lowest common denominator. (a lot of things that "require linux" will work on unix/BSD too, but no one throws a fit over that).

Also, the most important factor is that communication is about conveying thoughts effectively. If you understood "Linux" well enough to try to correct it, then you understood and thoughts are conveyed. That also means insisting on GNU/Linux for colloquial use is just pedantic.

> Alpine doesn't use GNU by default. And it would fit into what I call "Linux".

I'd have no problem calling Alpine musl/Linux or whatever.

> You need GNU coreutils. But you need a lot of other things too, why are the other things omitted from the naming?

Calling GNU/Linux also reflects the history of the operating system. This is actually the main reason that Stallman objects to calling it "Linux" -- because you're ignoring the fact that GNU came first (and the reason why GNU exists, which lead to all of the other projects you're talking about). You wouldn't have X.org, vim or many other projects without GNU -- simply because the community wouldn't have existed.

> If something requires GNU, i can say "requires Linux with GNU"

... no. Because you can run GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kNetBSD or even GNU/NT. How would you describe GNU/kFreeBSD to someone (remembering that to users it is basically indistinguishable from GNU/Linux)? "It's like Linux but doesn't have Linux in it?"

> How would you describe GNU/kFreeBSD to someone (remembering that to users it is basically indistinguishable from GNU/Linux)? "It's like Linux but doesn't have Linux in it?"

Exactly like that. I've heard people refer to all posix systems blindly as "unix" and its not worth correcting. If someone knows what GNU/kFreeBSD is, or cares to discuss it, we can discuss it. But generally speaking, I try to keep things concise. When I say "linux" im not trying to go into details, otherwise I'd specify that I'm using arch, ubuntu or whatever. I'm trying to lay down a generic concept of a group of operating systems. And saying "GNU/Linux" doesnt help me convey that idea any better to 99% of people. "linux" is just slang for "gnu/linux".

So if you want to say gnu/linux out of respect for stallman, sure. go ahead. but im not going to.

Stallman's definition is correct. The operating system for everyone else includes the userland and libc. Luckily this is what made LX and the Windows equivalent possible, though.

Ok then my second point stands. If I bought a new car and you said "Nice wheels" (is this slang still in use?) and I said "What you're referring to as wheels is actually car/wheels", you'd think I was an idiot.

If someone says just "Linux" they colloquially mean "Linux based operating systems" or perhaps even "Linux based operating systems like those in the most common distributions".

If I say "IE only runs on Windows", people dont argue that it doesn't run on Windows 3.11. They just know that "Windows" means "modern Windows" in this case, or at the very least, the implication that IE DOESNT run on competing operating systems. I mean, if I'm in a debate about Microsft vs Apple and I say "but for DirectX 12 and games you need Windows!" - here I specifically mean Windows 10, but "Windows" is enough to distinguish it from competitors.

If I say a game is for "Windows and Linux" or "Windows and Mac, but not Linux", its safe to say you understood what I'm talking about. And arguing otherwise means you're being pedantic.

If we're not currently in a discussion about differences between kernels or even libc implementations (in those discussions, it's safe to assume we're not using a colloquial definition), then it is safe to say that "Linux" means "Linux based operating system"

So Redhat is hostile towards Linux too then, right? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't push their competing products against Canonical or Suse.

Just because companies release competing, incompatible products, doesn't mean they're "hostile" towards one another.

Redhat is not pushing developers into producing software incompatible with anything but their own system. They are actively involved in the development of almost all core software common to all distros, and even flatpak, which is meant to tear down barriers between distro package formats rather than prop up the wall.

Microsoft could push Windows all they want if they were not also pushing an ecosystem exclusive to that platform along with it. If Windows was "just another unix" and was interchangeable at the user level with other operating systems, particularly those that would respect user freedoms, there would be no issue with its nature as "default" or in Microsofts behavior in regards to its users, because there would be real choice.

Real choice, in exactly the same way Red Hat vs SUSE vs Ubuntu users have right now amongst themselves.

Oh... ok. So because Redhat makes some products that ONLY work on Linux, and are interchangeable between a few distros (although not the supported paid-for versions), you get "real choice".

What's my choice if I'm an AIX user, or a Solaris user, or an HPUX user, or a Windows user, or a FreeBSD user? My choice is to switch operating systems? Sort of like the choice MS provides?

Well, MS is still extorting money from android vendors using os related patents.

That's completely irrelevant. But "extorting" is more than a BIT of a stretch. They've got valid patents that Android handset makers need. Just like they need licensing to even put a cellular modem in the phone in the first place.

If you honestly think Samsung would willingly hand over $10-15 per handset over bunk patents, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in.

Lots of companies have "valid patents" that are bullshit and not particularly innovative but they don't use them to attack other companies when they can't compete. See Google for example, they only use patents defensively.

Oh, maybe but I don't see what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.

These patents aren't being used passively. They are being used for royalties. And Samsung wouldn't pay the royalty unless there was a strong legal case.

Exactly, they are being used offensively to rent seek. Not defensively (only used to sue companies that sue you).

Many of those patents are directly targeting Linux and all are BS. Samsung earns enough money so that they chose not to enter multi billion dollar gambit where law protects BS software patents.

A quick look at the list tells me you don't know what you're talking about. First one: using cell network and GPS for more accurate positioning.

That has nothing to do with Linux or Android directly, and everything to do with ANY CELLPHONE.

Where is this list ?

http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.doc...

Any chance this is available as a pdf ?

HP I think it was just an example. In fact all platinum members pay $ 500K [https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws] to be able to join the meetings and being able to participate in the ballotings.

This is the ultimate embrace, extend move. Hopefully it means MS has reconciled itself to the fact that it cannot easily extinguish Linux. I would expect MS to use this position to divert headlines away from the concept of free software, and toward the MS brand; and to introduce dependencies to third-party software that makes it difficult to extract MS proprietary code entirely from the Linux ecosystem.

I think we need a bot to call EEE every time Microsoft is mentioned.

I don't think they are necessarily doing the extinguish part anymore as a primary strategy. More like embrace, extend, entangle.

Making people want to use your product was a good business strategy last I heard.

> being a platinum member entails donating $500k

The important thing about this news is not the title or the amount. The important thing to notice that Microsoft has moved from extreme hostility to active co-operation with general Linux community. This is a good move and it benefits Linux community lot more than Microsoft.

I always felt that it was needless to paint MS/Linux as some kind of zero some game to begin with. Sad that MS's top leadership fell prey to it in the initial years trying to hurt Linux.

How does this benefit the Linux community even more? Microsofts move to include shells and a kernel compatible with Unix may end up being one of the most damaging things to Linux in a long time.

All of the casual users that don't care about open source will just give in and use Windows as their OS when they hit a driver snag or something since they still get the userspace tools they like.

Which is what "casual users" have been doing with macOS for a while now: getting some of the BSD userspace tools they like in a friendlier overall OS package.

If anything Microsoft is providing a way to encourage Windows users that would never touch a BSD or Linux userspace tool to give it a try. That's a possible way to bring new users to Linux: teach them how to do things with Linux userspace tools and encourage them to dive deeper until they can do everything they want with Linux userspace tools and then maybe encourage them to switch.

If anything, Microsoft has given the Linux community the keys to possibly embrace some "casual users" that otherwise never would have explored Linux.

We must also not forget that other companies have since proven that the idea of a proprietary operating system (or just kernel) as the main base of IP has started to look somewhat obsolete anyway. Now we have proprietary services and systems like Android and macOS have demonstrated that you can take an (at least partly) open source OS and slap most of the proprietary bits in userspace quite successfully. For that matter the "next version" of Windows might as well be a rebranded version of Android or something. Why keep maintaining your own OS kernel when you can have the community do it for you with a modest donation?

NT will be with us for a while yet, though I can't understand the business case for not end of lifing it at some point, especially when most of the engineers you hire don't know it well.

I don't see how this means they have stopped being hostile. For example, they are still suing android manufacturers.

I think they are doing this because they think they have to and not because they have actually embraced anything. I think they are trying to buy goodwill.

All of these companies in the mobile space seem to be constantly suing each other though right? Microsoft is no more hostile than Apple or Google in this regard?

I think you misspelled co-option.

While Microsoft was the effective monopoly, they stayed as a monopoly trying to reap the fruits of the new status quo.

It makes financial sense for them to join the Linux Foundation. Joining the Linux Foundation does not make them to, for example, start contributing to WINE, since that does not make financial sense to them.

> I think it's fair to assume that the days of "embrace, extend and extinguish" are over and they are genuinely interested in cooperation.

I'd welcome that, but MS still needs to fix several very major issues which stand in the way of such cooperation.

1. Stop the patent aggression.

2. More support for open standards. Especially in 3D graphics (DirectX lock-in), filesystems on removable media (exFAT lock-in), and so on and so forth.

3. Stop Windows tax / Windows bundling anti-competitive practices.

Once those are changed for the better, I'd say MS really changed. There is some progress with the above for example in case of the browser. MS joining Alliance for Open Media is one such case. But quite a lot still remains problematic.

> 3. Stop Windows tax / Windows bundling anti-competitive practices.

well bundling is not a problem for me. I mean most people will use windows no matter how much better linux gets.

however the bigger problem is that windows actually allows vendors to create shitty drivers and fix shitty hardware within there kernel, that should not happen. windows should ONLY allow signed drivers for companies that are willing to create specifications for their devices.

3. Are they still doing that though, I don't see any evidence? Over here (Macedonia) you can buy laptops/PCs from most brands without Windows, cheaper.

4. What really irks me, is a point you missed: they are dealing with corrupt governments everywhere to make sure all government and education computers have Windows and Office, and that is what gets taught in schools.

> Are they still doing that though, I don't see any evidence? Over here (Macedonia) you can buy laptops/PCs from most brands without Windows, cheaper.

In many countries yes, they are still doing it.

I get the impression that he wants to leave the cloud to linux and try to position Windows as a user-facing client.

Is that why they're pushing the Azure cloud service - to benefit Linux?

Considering 50% of Azure instances are Linux, perhaps?

other way around.

Reading your comment, I was suddenly reminded of the days when the Windows vs. Linux TCO (=total cost of ownership) debacle was all aflame... ah the sad irony.

Assuming Platinum is the highest membership, wouldn't it be fair to consider the possibility that MS contributed MORE than 500k?

> and they are genuinely interested in cooperation.

In my opinion, they are not at all interested in cooperation until they port Office and Visual Studio to Linux or open source them.

Do you not count SQL Server, VS Code, ASP.NET core running Linux as cooperation? They are genuinely trying here.

It is definitely a step in the right direction.

But I'd argue that the most used microsoft product in the world (besides Windows) is MS Office. What holds a lot of people back from running Linux is that they don't like dealing with compatibility issues with LibreOffice and MS Office.

Microsoft knows if they open source or port MS Office to Linux, they will lose a massive market share and millions of people will stop using Windows. And I don't blame them, any reasonable business would not do something like that.

But unless they do that, I don't see how they can claim to be cooperating when they refuse to port their main product to Linux.

>Microsoft knows if they open source or port MS Office to Linux, they will lose a massive market share and millions of people will stop using Windows.

That's a huge assumption. There's no real indication that people would stop using Windows if Office existed in Linux.

If that were the case, then porting Office to OS X would've had a similar effect, don't you think?

Ultimately I believe the reason Microsoft doesn't bother porting to Linux is that the market-share is just not worth the cost of re-writing for another platform, and keeping it updated.

Additionally, as a compromise Office 365 runs on browser, which further decreases the incentive to port to Linux. Since you can get a similar experience using Office 365 on Linux, that said I won't be so disingenuous as to imply that the experience is as good as a native application.

In conclusion, Linux has a very small market share, so making a native application for it might not be cost effective. Additionally, Microsoft might see that market share as "served" regardless due to their online Office 365 web application.

> That's a huge assumption. There's no real indication that people would stop using Windows if Office existed in Linux.

Except for basically every thread I've seen about switching to Linux, where people say the only reason they won't switch is because they still want to use Office and Photoshop.

>If that were the case, then porting Office to OS X would've had a similar effect, don't you think?

No. Cost is a major reason people don't switch to OS X. But Linux is free.

> Ultimately I believe the reason Microsoft doesn't bother porting to Linux is that the market-share is just not worth the cost of re-writing for another platform, and keeping it updated.

That is a good point. But as I said, unless they port their main product to Linux, how can they claim to be cooperating when the ONE product that most people agree is a very good MS product is not available natively on Linux?

> Cost is a major reason people don't switch to OS X.

Cost is a lot more than the physical machine.

This is why Linux machines while technically less expensive (no OS license) are actually more expensive in terms of support. Until that nut can be cracked it's hard to get wide-scale adoption (e.g. 50% deskops vs. 5%).

Do you have a reliable ref for the cost comparison?

IBM does studies, though they are to be taken with a grain of salt. http://www.cio.com/article/3001871/macbook/switch-to-macs-fr... Thing is they're one of the few companies that are proponents of both Mac and Linux (plus their own UNIX variant) as well as Windows.

It really depends on the company and the nature of work people are doing. Some software is a mess on anything but Windows. Some software is actually better on Linux.

> Except for basically every thread I've seen about switching to Linux

Those are people who are aware of Linux, while much of the population isn't. Selection bias at play.

> unless they port their main product to Linux

Office accounts for about 5% of MS's revenue.

> how can they claim to be cooperating when the ONE product that most people agree is a very good MS product is not available natively on Linux?

That's not the only definition of "cooperating"...

Well, it sounds like they're working with Linux in some markets and going their own way on others.

The thing that stuck out to me about the presser was the quote from the VP of Cloud and Enterprise Group, and that someone high up on Azure team is joining the Linux Foundation board of directors. This indicates to me that it's really a desire to compete effectively with AWS and Google Cloud that drives this co-operation, rather than a desire to expand Linux. Nothing wrong with this of course. Azure is a major cloud platform, personally I think it's better for everyone if Linux runs well there.

You can cooperate without having to give up all your proprietary tools.

How do you think the internet was made? By setting aside proprietary protocols and agreeing on open standards. Each vendor's free to do whatever they want so long as they use those standards.

Not even when they are making huge investments into Azure, which pretty much requires linux to be a viable alternative to AWS?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com