Hacker News Reader

Comment by panki27 | Hacker News Reader

Think how far we've come, today Microsoft is handing out its own Linux kernels.

I'm sometimes wondering whether Microsoft wants to tank their Windows Server or what? A great OS overall, but speaking as a service provider - the licensing makes so much effort on provider part to even offer a VM with Microsoft OS. Only recently (due to EU pressure?) provided License mobility where customer himself is responsible for software licences and can BYOL.

Otherwise it was on service provider to collect whatever software the customer is using and charge for it. And if you don't, prepare for a hefty fine. Windows of course provides SIL infrastructure to do just that, but all that implies server has to be configured in some way.

And then the price for the licence ofcourse...

I really like Windows Server OS, but the effort it puts on part of service provider - no wonders everyone wants and offers to deploy Linux.

I suspect that those working on Windows are a different department entirely from those who handle Azure stuff. So while they're maybe encouraged to use Windows, they tend to favour what works best for them - which in many cases is Linux.

Azure is powered by Windows, https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-os-platform-b...

I meant that Linux is basically a first-class citizen across Azure. I don't know what powers all of Azure, and I'd be surprised if it was Windows across the board. Probably a combination of both, really, I imagine they're quite pragmatic about these things as long as the money keeps rolling in.

And that windows is backed by Linux if performance is key: https://cfp.all-systems-go.io/media/all-systems-go-2023/subm...

> PCIe card running Linux hardened OS....

That is not a server OS.

And I would assert it is Linux based instead of another firmware RTOS, because of licensing and yeah, if you want to be pedantic Windows was never designed to fit into the firmware of a network card.

> if you want to be pedantic Windows was never designed to fit into the firmware of a network card.

If you want to be pedantic, nor was the linux kernel.

Linux kernel by its nature was designed to be taken away, source code ripped off and massaged into anything with a CPU to run a custom modification of it.

There are lots of stuff running a "Linux kernel" that have little to no resemblance to a default build from upstream.

Yes but all this is not because it was designed for it. It wasn't. It is just the open nature of its license that made it possible as a consequence through external contributions.

They had to. They wanted to get into cloud and their own OS was optimized for desktops.

You mean the Windows kernel that powers Azure, used to run those GNU/Linux instances?

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-os-platform-b...

Ah, that explains the poorer performance when comparing to AWS or GCP, now it makes sense, thanks!

The financial performance looks quite alright to me, specially when looking at GCP 3rd place, and regular issues to stay relevant to big enterprises.

When not AWS, it is Azure, so the performance isn't that bad to start with.

Also AWS and GCP aren't running cloud instances of game consoles (which also use a variation of Windows), GCP one (Stadia) powered by Linux was a failure, nor are they running an AI service being used by millions of folks around the globe.

Not bad.

In my experience, Hyper-V is pretty much on par with ESX or Xen in this regard.

"Optimized" what a strange choosing of word.

Haha I felt the same way after I hit reply. I guess "focused on desktop" would be more apt. Either way it's not at all suitable for cloud native stuff.

Microsoft neither focus their OS on desktop nor user. They focus on selling users tool spies on users. Almost any progress on Windows is microsoft centric.

Even their main weapon (API) now is holstered.

If it's optimized for anything it's probably telemetry collection and ad delivery.

The current involvement of Microsoft with "Linux" is nothing more than good old EEE. Exactly as described in the Halloween Documents.

‘to understand how to compete against OSS [open source software], we must target a process rather than a company’

https://www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk/site/chapters/10.16997/b...

Hardly possible when Red-Hat, Oracle, Google, SuSE, IBM, are doing similar approaches to GNU/Linux.

The scary thing about that is that folks actually use them and think they are good.

"folks" are serfs in this system

They can just install Linux and be free. It's not that difficult.

Which is why it's good that's it's GPL. Compare to, e.g. Chrome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com