Hacker News Reader

>But we (the tech community) never seem to get bored with the "Microsoft is eating humble pie on OSS" story. Maybe that's exactly what Microsoft deserves after so many years of big-bad-wolf behavior.

And Microsoft absolutely relishes it. The tech community provides priceless support for Microsoft's key marketing message, which is that Azure runs everything and you don't have to go to AWS for first class Linux hosting.

The humble pie they are eating is worth billions per bite.

And the next generation at Microsoft doesn’t even think this is humble pie - we think Linux (and open source in general) is the most delicious (and profitable!) pie we could possibly imagine.

> The humble pie they are eating is worth billions per bite.

Absolutely it is - I don't mean to deny that. Only that the story obscures a lot of value that we, the broader tech community, should be taking from their contributions.

I've been a dev for 20+ years now. I don't care about the OSS vs Proprietary argument at all. I care about my productivity and job satisfaction. Microsoft - in every sphere from IDEs to cloud platforms and now machine learning - has done more to make this stuff easier to learn, use and afford than any other organization.

>I don't care about the OSS vs Proprietary argument at all. I care about my productivity and job satisfaction.

That's kind of like saying, "I don't care about voting, I just want politicians to represent me."

Arguing on the internet isn't analogous to voting. Voting accomplishes things, arguing about OSS Vs Proprietary just wastes time.

It matters when you're involved in purchasing decisions and also when you're deciding whether or not to contribute to a project.

Well Oracle...is a counterexample to that argument.

I think it's saying that "software politics" and productivity are not one in the same.

I would give that title to SUN. Without them, there would be no Java, and thus no Eclipse, and thus no incentive to advance the IDEs to the point they are today.

That productivity and job satisfaction, you have it despite Microsoft. Imagine a world where MS wouldn't have spent their resources on killing Webbrowsers and Java, where you could run a jar file on any operating system with ease. Or imagine a world where exchanging office files between different programs would have been easy.

> Without them, there would be no Java, and thus no Eclipse, and thus no incentive to advance the IDEs to the point they are today.

I don't buy this argument. IDEs would just advance as they're tools written buy the people who use them - there's an inherent drive to increase their usefulness and automate the mundane and repetitive. Also for what It's worth I think before MS really got their shit together in the IDE space it was Borland that was at the forefront.

Of cource, IDEs advance. But at which pace? The bottleneck was the language. When MS got their shit together they just caught up with Java.

Maybe MS has done the most, made the biggest investments. But splitting the ecosystem of managed languages into Java and C# hasn't made life easier for developers nor users.

Which orchestrator are you referring to? System Center in no way competes with kubernetes since it's lacking 90% of the features. Maybe I'm bad at googling, but I can't find what you're referring to.

Edit: I see the one you're referring to in that link, but again, it's not at all a comparison with kubernetes. It's easy at face value to say this one is better, but it's missing the point of kubernetes, which is extensibility, following standards, etc.

They linked it. Service Fabric.

> Service Fabric is a distributed systems platform for packaging, deploying, and managing stateless and stateful distributed applications and containers at large scale.

https://github.com/Microsoft/service-fabric

If you Google it you'll find several comparisons to k8s and others.

I looked into this a while back, and Service Fabric was a clear winner over k8s, and resource use was a fraction of k8s too.

But, I felt it needed to gain community traction before I could commit to using it - knowing my luck, I'd build something and Microsoft would abandon it because k8s...

Kind of a chicken and egg problem, which is a shame really.

No, it was a clear winner for your use case. It's missing a significant amount of features from k8s, though, and if you don't need those, then great. But don't pretend they're comparable.

I think it's more fair to say the suit different use cases (an MS person on HN explicitly said this last year), rather than competing.

As I remember it, it was a clear winner with no caveats. But my memory is shit, so there is that.

What features do you believe it's missing?

Custom scheduler, a declarative API, the estimated of custom resources, many different filesystems natively supported, etc

By "scheduler", do you mean as in "decides which nodes to run on"?

You can build Service Fabric manifests with XML.

Yes, but from what I can tell in their documentation you cannot make the same level of decisions that you can with kubernetes.

RE your edit, Service Fabric came out well before any standards existed.

>following standards

What standards?

CNI, CSI, OCI

" Did you know that Microsoft built and open sourced an orchestrator that can manage tens if millions of nodes with totally diverse workloads (containers, VMs, and bare metal), nested hypervisors, and even nested orchestrators in a secure multi tenant context? That beats the crap out of kubernetes on a capabilities front, but it's not an easy story to sell."

Interesting .. Can you please elaborate more on this ?

You are trying to defend Microsoft from these stories. But "Microsoft eats humble pie on OSS" is exactly the narrative they want out there. It gives them the cover they want to embrace extend extinguish Linux and other major open source projects.

> It gives them the cover they want to embrace extend extinguish Linux and other major open source projects.

Were you alive when Microsoft reigned as the dark lord? The contrast between life then and now is so dramatic. They simply lack the power they once wielded over the world of computers and the internet - to everyone’s great benefit, including theirs.

>Were you alive when Microsoft reigned as the dark lord?

Yes I was. I worked in that stifling environment when anything not MS related was dismissed out of hand. Where MS's own marketing exhorted everybody to replace their 'legacy' unix systems with e.g. the wonderful system of Biztalk, Exchange and IIS.

Yes, constant vigilance so that they never regain that position again, as I'm pretty sure they desperately want to.

> Yes, constant vigilance so that they never regain that position again, as I'm pretty sure they desperately want to.

I doubt Microsoft wants to reign as a dark lord again at the moment - rather, they're attempting to grow their business through use of open technologies, like Google back in the 2000's. Although if any MS products/services become too dominant, I have no doubt that (like any other big company in such a position) they'll fall to the temptation to exploit their dominance for more money and power.

It's not Microsoft that's evil -- it's people and their capacity to be corrupted by inordinate power.

Lacking power is not to their benefit. You have drunken the coolaid all the way.

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? It would be good if you'd stop posting unsubstantive comments generally.

> Did you know that Microsoft built and open sourced an orchestrator that can manage tens if millions of nodes with totally diverse workloads (containers, VMs, and bare metal), nested hypervisors, and even nested orchestrators in a secure multi tenant context?

No, and I don't really care. Is there something wrong with that?

Am I limiting myself by ruling them out from the get go based on past behaviour?

After a decade of out right ignorance of windows services what would it take for me to catch up in order to even begin to unpack and then finally even begin to leverage what you just mentioned?

Is it even worth the time for me to try and grok it?

Am I laughing that azure runs more Linux than windows? No. I assumed that was the case years ago because you're an idiot if you're still stucking on that windows teet after all they've done. And I don't care that you think Im a close minded idiot for speaking that truth.

Why? Because not a single employer that matters to me thinks your knowledge of windows crapware is a competitive advantage in the environments most real tech operates in.

Call me when Google starts running search off of windows boxes.

> Am I limiting myself by ruling them out from the get go based on past behaviour?

Yes, by definition. You have every right to, of course! But yeah you're limiting yourself.

> what would it take for me to catch up in order to even begin to unpack and then finally even begin to leverage what you just mentioned?

What did it take for you to unpack/leverage k8s? Similar. SF runs on Linux, and is an orchestrator for fundamental components that you're used to: VMs, containers, and bare metal instances. There's nothing Windows-specific there. Particularly if you deal with a mix of stateless and stateful applications, or if multi-tenancy is an issue for you, SF has valuable strengths.

> not a single employer that matters to me thinks your knowledge of windows crapware is a competitive advantage in the environments most real tech operates in.

Hm, the only windows specific component I mentioned is Hyper-V. Other services tend to be solid implementations of open source projects you probably tolerate, like kubernetes or tensorflow. You know, places where MS is a major contributor. I was talking about our blindness to MS contributions across the spectrum - which you seem to exemplify pretty neatly.

You can limit yourself however you want. Be careful with your blanket statements though; you just excluded a lot of companies from your list of "companies you care about" and "real tech." Airbus, Atlassian, Bitnami, Cisco, Dell, Docker, Facebook, Fujitsu, GE, Hashicorp, Intel, Kaltura, Lockheed, MongoDB, New Relic, Oracle, Nokia, Raytheon, Red Hat, Roku, Salesforce, Samsung, SAP, Siemens, Sony, SUSE, Symantec, Tableau, Trend Micro, and others all work closely with Azure and Microsoft tech... maybe those companies don't count as "real tech" to you. Either that, or you should consider re-evaluating your limitations.

You haven't mentioned how I am limiting myself.

How am I missing out?

Most if not all of those companies are uninteresting to me.

And I don't think any of them would shy away from hiring me for my lack of experience with azure / ms tech. They might not hire me for other reasons but that would not be one of the reasons.