How to Download and Install Linux
learn.microsoft.com
learn.microsoft.com
Or they just give you an overview on the different install methods
And once your company’s data is on Azure, chances are it’ll stay there forever.
> few developers choose this method due to the overhead of needing to restart (reboot) your device any time you want to switch between the operating systems.
The overhead of booting windows maybe once a year?
> If you choose the bare metal Linux install route, you may also need to deal with potential driver issues or hardware compatibility problems that may arise with Linux on some devices.
With Linux?
Did they even mention that you need to install windows before Linux because windows has (had?) No concept for dual boot?
No way!
If you were to boot into Windows only once a year, I'm sure there will be a couple of updates waiting to be installed, forcing you to boot into Windows at least twice a year ;-)
Last time I tried it would still overwrite whatever Grub set up so yes, after 30 years of Linux Windows is still behaving like it's the only game in town.
Why even bother? I have a dedicated cheap desktop running Windows (because I needed it for specific hardware), but, normally, I just fire up a VM when I need Windows for something.
I haven’t needed it in a very long time.
And it runs a lot better on top of Linux than on bare metal. Not quite sure why, but its perceivable.
Then my favourite desktop (cinnamon) didn't recognise HiDPI out of the box. I had to figure out how to scale the desktop properly.
Then the trackpad scrolling acceleration is way too fast. You can't change the scrolling acceleration independently from the cursor acceleration so I had to manually modify that in a config file
Then my touch screen is only recognised as a mouse. So i can click and drag, but I can't scroll documents/websites like I can in windows
Then the fan curve is not correct by default. I had to find some values buried in forum posts and then edit the service config to set the fan to these random values
So yes, linux can be an absolute arse to set up even for a developer, let alone the average user. I've been a linux user for the best part of 20 years, but hardware compatibility has always been a pain point.
Yes, with Linux: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37864883
In 99% of all cases driver are installed and updated in the background.
Every time you buy a computer it is generally going to be "bleeding edge" to various degrees and it's unlikely to work properly for X months/years.
It is only because people keep their machines for several years that the "average" machine running linux is several years old, yet it seems like a rite of passage for people to blame the user for having the audacity to buy a laptop that isn't 10 years old with X and Y but avoids Z wifi chipset.
"did you know, you can actually run linux on bare metal??? zomg but it's super scary and will void your warranty and probably your dog will die and the fbi will think you're a hacker, probably because your wife will tell them, because srsly who does that otherwise?"
for those who don't know, Microsoft openly claimed that "Linux is a cancer" back in 2001.
https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
Yes, and? Like any company, it's not a single-mind monolith set in stone willing to die on some random hills, but adapts to where the money is if it wishes to survive, and it's represented by people who are subject to change, specifically Balmer who said that at the time and he's been replaced by Nadella, who fixed a lot of the bad directions Blamer took.
Apple also refused to use USB-C over lightning until the EU forced them, then came around and told everyone how much better the "new" USB C connector is despite refusing to use it in their phones for nearly a decade.
you seem to have yourself really confused.
refusing to use certain tech is one thing, labelling it as a "cancer" when the tech is being built by millions of people with an idea of promoting openness is a completely different new level.
The only conclusion was that Balmer was wrong and Microsoft was right.
The same Microsoft that had a lawsuit with Sun regarding J++, which lead to the creation of .NET, now has its own Java distribution based on OpenJDK, hired several OpenJDK contributors, and is one of the companies doing the work of ARM support.
Also collaborates with Red-Hat in the Java support for Visual Studio, one of the few languages alongside Python, C#, PowerShell and TypeScript that have tier 1 support from Microsoft.
Incidently is why the Windows development experience has gotten worse, with most of the work done by interns and people without background in Windows developer culture.
If only some of the money used for Activision/Blizzard acquisition was used for Windows teams instead.
the reason why they have to rely on interns to do such "development" is obvious - skilled developers feel ashamed or at least embarrassing to use/develop for windows.
however, you and I can definitely agree on something here, that is the company known as microsoft is still making money by selling dinosaur "techs", look at its windows, office, visual studio, how much really changed from the 2001 era? yet it is still a major cash cow of the company.
The trend is that its becoming more and more difficult (due to reimplementation costs and dependency lock-ins) to do Linux in the non-Microsoft way.
XDG, UKI and UAPI Standards are also written by people who are getting their paycheck from Microsoft.
When will this tired piece of shit known as FUD die.
With that logic then the damn Linux kernel got "unexpected" ties to Microsoft.
>The trend is that its becoming more and more difficult (due to reimplementation costs and dependency lock-ins) to do Linux in the non-Microsoft way.
No idea what this is suppose to mean in this context, that we get new hardware stanards/tech like UEFI/GPT/secure boot or that people choose to use software like systemd?
Smells alot like embrace, extend. Extinguish comes next.
Or to be more specific: If Microsoft is directly or directly involved in OSS or standards, then it's all EEE/compromised.
GPT/UEFI are standards, they are not ruled by Microsoft nor do I even think it was sole written with Microsoft in mind, at best what I can find is that UEFI took the same architecture Windows has with EFI, that's about it.
systemd's only concern with well systemd, no one is stopping you from not using it, or I'm oh so curious how non-systemd distros are able to boot WITH UEFI + GPT.
- GPT partition uuid's with the "mixed endianess" from Windows COM: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220928-00/?p=10...
- ESP is the FAT filesystem, developed in 1977 for DOS
- LFS vfat extensions so the ESP can have directory entries with lowercase letters or longer than 11 characters. This also pulls in the UCS-2 encoding. Stuff from Windows 95.
- EFI executables are actually windows PE executables
- ... which are hacked on top of a MS-DOS MZ executables (The "This program cannot be run in DOS mode" thing)
- ... and use the Windows64 calling convention
So formally, UEFI is not ruled by Microsoft. Somehow yet all this Windows/MS-DOS stuff ended up in it.
From the wikipedia[1]:
>The binary encoding of UUIDs varies between systems. Variant 1 UUIDs, nowadays the most common variant, are encoded in a big-endian format.
>Variant 2 UUIDs, historically used in Microsoft's COM/OLE libraries, use a little-endian format, but appear mixed-endian with the first three components of the UUID as little-endian and last two big-endian, due to the missing byte dashes when formatted as a string
In other words, there are 2 variants, 2 is for Microsoft's COM/OLE, so it's not designed by Microsoft.
>ESP is the FAT filesystem, developed in 1977 for DOS
>LFS vfat extensions so the ESP can have directory entries with lowercase letters or longer than 11 characters. This also pulls in the UCS-2 encoding. Stuff from Windows 95.
FAT is not govern by Microsoft, despite them being the original author, and even then FAT32 patents have expired[2].
>EFI executables are actually windows PE executables
You would need to provide proper source for this, the only source I can only talks about boot loaders, which I would imagine is written with the OS in mind[3].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier#...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Patents
And here the history and current usage of the PE format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
It was made for Windows 3.1.
And again that source doesn't give me any evidence of your claim.
Secondly, Lennart Poettering became a Microsoft employee only recently, after all the systemd drama took place.
And Poettering didn't stop working on systemd, so you can estimate that Microsoft is not having a negative attitude towards his previous work.
systemd adoption across Linux distributions and the features everyone complains about, predates his hiring process by several years.
In that case, what would the extinguish stage be?
- Some kind of MS branded Linux, that offers improved security/performance/usability etc. it’ll offer full compatibility with existing distros like Debian that devs are already familiar with, but it’ll come pre-setup on windows and it’ll have an amazing integration with GitHub, VSCode and azure, and probably their K8s product too. Much like VSCode they’ll use their influence to get devs used to using it. They’ll probably sponsor a bunch of major OSS projects to use it and start offering features specific to it, bits of it will be “open sourced soon” or similar. The position of power and control will be exerted over it-much the same way Google does with chrome and how that is “open source”.
- a linux compatible api layer over windows, with the angle of “no reason to need Linux anymore”, they’ll angle for large enterprise customers first, offering a Linux-compatible experience, to convert them. Similar experience with above, where the end to end (local to cloud) experience will be the focus. Once again they’ll integrate with existing tooling and major OSS players with the same goal-be so seamless and tightly integrated, and “works with existing tools” that devs will flock to it the way they do with chrome. Orgs and projects will switch to supporting it, probably because the overall experience is superior.
That’s a couple of ideas off the top of my head, we could probably all come with some more scenarios.
It could be called WINE, because it wouldn’t be an emulator.
But last time I tried, it didn't work very well. That was a few years ago already. I'm not sure what the current state is and if I'd need more than 1 GPU. I could imagine running Linux with the CPU's GPU only and having the Nvidia GPU (because let's be real, who uses AMD for gaming, nv uses less energy to achieve a nicer looking result) dedicated for the Windows VM.