OSDev.org

zaval wrote: They offload spendings using it, as every corporate linux "lovers" do, but why would they replace a far superior, fully fledged, ready to keep its dominance, with such the heritage and ecosystem OS, remains the question. Why will they want to replace their crown jewel with a plastic substitute?

First of all, because it's not their crown jewel anymore, Azure is. And to the degree that Windows is their crown jewel, it's as much the Windows userland as the NT kernel.

The code base, they have been nurturing for decades, the code base they fully own and don't need to pull off from somewhere outside and "patch" that mess to fit their visions. Windows is not IE/Edge. Even that was a real bad decision, hurting more a very deplorable browser situation. Without real competition, browsers will get so "improved" soon, that will be eating up gigabytes of memory for an empty page. Not hundreds of megabytes as is now. But Windows is not the case. Like at even 0.001% of chance. Maybe it's just wet fantasies of linux fans, so hardly trying to show, they don't care about anything Windows, yet generating assumptions like this? Anyway, if that happens, then this will be the dumbest decision ever made in this industry, and given MS is always #1 in everything, who knows. Heil ReactOS then!

The fact is, NT is about the only non-Unix kernel left among major operating systems. And the reason that it's the only one left is because most of the vendors that had their own kernels (and didn't die somewhere in the interim) decided at some point along the road that it *was* their best option to pick a Unix kernel, write a compatibility layer for their existing APIs on top of that kernel, and release the next version of their OS with Unix under the hood. What kernel's did Apple and Novell use in the 90s? What kernels do they use now? (Novell even offered their userland with a choice of kernel for a version or two before abandoning the Netware kernel entirely).

And the fact is, the Win32 API was *written* to work on top of multiple kernels, which probably explains in part why Wine has done as well as it has. Win32 runs/ran both on top of NT and on top of the monstrosity that was DOS/EMM386/Win16. Microsoft has ported Win32 to other kernels before, and on a much shakier foundation than Linux.

On top of this, Microsoft already has a compatibility layer written for them. I by no means take it for granted that they *will* rekernel to Linux, but if they do decide to, a sign to watch out for is Microsoft suddenly contributing a ton of code to Wine. Wine isn't perfect, but it's good, and could only get better with actual input from Microsoft.

And its not just that I really want it to happen because I'm a Linux fanboi. Sure, there will be some sense of vindication, but the big evils of the modern tech industry are not what they were in the 90s and 2000s when we were all dreaming about the year of the Linux desktop. They lie in lower levels than the kernel (firmware), and higher levels (middleware in practically every consumer system from every vendor that would have been considered spyware of the type spewed out by only the seediest fly-by-night vendors 20 years ago), and, more importantly, away from client systems: big online services (from whatever vendor) are where the real nastiness is, and the shady stuff going on at the firmware and middleware levels in client systems is largely meant to funnel customers towards some vendor or other's cloud services (or datamine for those services whether the customer uses them or not). I'm ever more certain that YOLD is coming, or even that it snuck up on us and arrived a while ago (Chromebooks and Android phones are a dime a dozen), but I'm less and less certain that it will make the future any less dystopian (Chromebooks and Android phones are a dime a dozen).

linguofreak wrote:I by no means take it for granted that they *will* rekernel to Linux

They have actually did that, see Miux. I'm not interested in M$ so I don't know how it's going along, but such a kernel do exists for sure.

linguofreak wrote:but if they do decide to, a sign to watch out for is Microsoft suddenly contributing a ton of code to Wine.

Well, not to wine in particular, but M$ is the biggest corporate contributor to Open Source, and in the last decade it was in the top 5 Linux kernel contributors. They wouldn't put that much effort in Linux unless they want to do something with it.

Cheers,
bzt

bzt wrote:Well, not to wine in particular, but M$ is the biggest corporate contributor to Open Source, and in the last decade it was in the top 5 Linux kernel contributors. They wouldn't put that much effort in Linux unless they want to do something with it.

I should have guessed that. So that's why many Linux drivers no longer are open source rather secret stuff developped by the hardware manufacturers themselves?

I suppose M$ can put lots of their own secret stuff into Linux distros they control and then charge people for it and at the same time put competitors out of business.

Makes me dislike Linux even more...

rdos wrote:I should have guessed that. So that's why many Linux drivers no longer are open source rather secret stuff developed by the hardware manufacturers themselves?

Linux drivers are and always be Open Source. There were efforts to use binary blobs with the kernel, but as lawyers pointed out that's in a clear violation of the GPL, no excuse. You can find long discussions about that on LKML, which all results in the conclusion that using closed-source binary blobs in the Linux kernel is completely unacceptable. Companies will keep trying to push their sh*t through though, so this has popped up and will pop up from time to time.
However Linux is licensed under GPL, which is a copyleft license meaning all the drivers linked against it must be GPL too, no workaround exists legally. See here, the criteria for submitting drivers: "What Criteria Determine Acceptance / Licensing: The code must be released to us under the GNU General Public License."

rdos wrote:I suppose M$ can put lots of their own secret stuff into Linux distros they control and then charge people for it and at the same time put competitors out of business.

I wish I could say you're wrong, but sadly there's truth in your words.

I also have a feeling that many corporations are only contributing just to undermine Linux (no wonder Linus are so angry at them, he is absolutely right, and TBH I would be angry too if I were in his shoes)

Linus wrote: BULLSHIT.

Have you _looked_ at the patches you are talking about? You should
have - several of them bear your name.
...
So somebody isn't telling the truth here. Somebody is pushing complete
garbage for unclear reasons. Sorry for having to point that out.
...
As it is, the patches are COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE.

They do literally insane things. They do things that do not make
sense. That makes all your arguments questionable and suspicious. The
patches do things that are not sane.

WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON?

And the response? Do you think that the guy lying and trying to force these patches was questioned? No, Linus was forced to take anger management. Yet another bullshit. Let me ask you this: did that anger management therapy solved the actual root cause of the problem that someone (Intel this time) is lying and forcing insane patches into the Linux kernel? Of course it did not, the problem still remained, it's just Linus is now saying politely that "Intel engineers are morons".

Cheers,
bzt

bzt wrote:They have actually did that, see Miux.

This was an april's fool article. Miux doesn't exist. You might want to actually read the links you post.

bzt wrote:Well, not to wine in particular, but M$ is the biggest corporate contributor to Open Source, and in the last decade it was in the top 5 Linux kernel contributors. They wouldn't put that much effort in Linux unless they want to do something with it.

Again you should read the article. They were initially forced into that situation because their Hyper V code contained GPL code. Then they are forced to update it as to not lose market share. It doesn't look like this has anything with Microsoft wanting to "do something with (Linux)".

kzinti wrote:This was an april's fool article.

Not the links. Have you actually checked them? I bet you didn't.

kzinti wrote:Again you should read the article. They were initially forced into that situation because their Hyper V code contained GPL code. Then they are forced to update it as to not lose market share.

You did not prove your claims at all, all you do is cheap talk. No offense. (And what you wrote is non sense anyway, because building on Open Source was Nadella's deliberate and admitted strategy, not something that "was forced on" the poor little IT giant.)

I on the other hand, always back up my claims with many references:
The biggest Open Source code sharing platform, github is owned by M$
M$ was already one of the biggest github contributors before the acquisition
M$ is really contributing to Open Source in general and
M$ is one the 5 top Linux contributors (no april's joke)
M$ ships Linux kernels...
...and Linux distro... (Azure Sphere OS)
...as well as other Linux distributions (although Mariner is for internal use only, at least for now)
Azure runs on Linux infrastructure, not on Windows, and it runs more Linux than Windows VMs

kzinti wrote:It doesn't look like this has anything with Microsoft wanting to "do something with (Linux)".

Yeah, yeah, right, and Earth is flat, and WSL is just a hologram, we know. Please explain this quote (chosen randomly from one of the official M$ repositories, there are lot more similar statements):

This initiative is part of Microsoft’s increasing investment in a wide range of Linux technologies, such as SONiC, Azure Sphere OS and Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL).

Cheers,
bzt

bzt wrote:Not the links. Have you actually checked them? I bet you didn't.

You lost your bet. I checked the links on the article your linked. That's how I know it's a hoax.

bzt wrote:You did not prove your claims at all, all you do is cheap talk.

I only replied to the link you posted. What I wrote was taken from the links you posted. It's not my claim nor my opinion. You can't then post a bunch of other links and demand that I explain anything. It is not on me that you used an hoax to make an argument.

bzt wrote:No offense.

Writing this shows that you know you are being offensive.

kzinti wrote:Writing this shows that you know you are being offensive.

Nope, it means I'm aware that you're just a troll, and anybody can see that you haven't backed up your claims. Not even in your latest post. I've reported you (again) in the hope that one day a moderator comes here.

Cheers,
bzt

bzt wrote:Nope, it means I'm aware that you're just a troll, and anybody can see that you haven't backed up your claims.

This is ridiculous. You were the one to make a claim, not kzinti. Your claim was that the kernel replacement already happened in a project called Miux. That project does not exist. Neither kzinti nor I can present you with evidence of something that does not exist.

When it was pointed out to you that Miux doesn't exist, you suddenly deflected to "oh but the links". Which was not your original claim. The links in that article are, in order:

1. A link to some "cloud event" in which Satya Nadella offered the phrase "Microsoft loves Linux". Hollow phrase, and not indicative of a kernel swap.
2. "Microsoft has always been one of the biggest contributors to Linux" which is a dead link.
3. "Windows 10 has taken features from Linux" which is a link to a blog article. And also not indicative of a kernel swap. (The features in question pertain to user interface. *yawn*)
4. "Miux will not hold you down while installing updates", which is a link to a meme image. And also not indicative of a kernel swap.
5. "Asterix" which goes to the website of the Asterix comics.
6. "Know more about this OS" which goes to Wikipedia's definition of April Fool's Day.

What about these is the evidence for the kernel swap? None of them.

And stop using the word "troll". It does not mean what you think it means. It means one who espouses a controversial opinion, not because they sincerely hold that opinion, but just to rile up controversy. In this thread, that was you. You made the controversial claim that Miux is real, and you knew it wasn't when you made the claim. And now you call the one who called you out on it a troll yourself.

bzt wrote:

kzinti wrote:Writing this shows that you know you are being offensive.

Nope, it means I'm aware that you're just a troll, and anybody can see that you haven't backed up your claims. Not even in your latest post. I've reported you (again) in the hope that one day a moderator comes here.

Cheers,
bzt

I've checked the links in the article you referred to. They clearly state that the article is an April fool (as if the date wasn't enough of a clue).

I'm glad that you sent a report to the mods; hopefully it will draw their attention to your habit of labelling people who disagree with you "trolls,", even when they are demonstrably posting verifiable facts.

bzt wrote:The biggest Open Source code sharing platform, github is owned by M$

bzt wrote:M$ was already one of the biggest github contributors before the acquisition

Both of these have nothing to do with Linux and your argument that Microsoft is thinking about replacing the NT kernel with the Linux one.

bzt wrote:M$ is one the 5 top Linux contributors (no april's joke)

Yes, this is the article that talks about Hyper-V and how Microsoft had to make significant contributions to update it. The article goes on to say that Microsoft is one of the top contributors to Linux 3.0 (which btw is already old) because of Hyper-V and how it is important to them. I've already said this above.

The reason Microsoft was contributing heavily to Linux 3.0 was to ensure that Linux ran properly on Windows server machines.

Do you even read the articles you link? It's the second time you link this article that you clearly haven't read. It's also very outdated (2011). Is your argument that because Microsoft made a lot of contributions to Linux 3.0 for their Hyper-V technology that they are now going to replace their kernel with the Linux one (in 2021)? It doesn't seem to make much sense. It's like you are just googling stuff and posting random links without actually reading them.

bzt wrote:M$ ships Linux kernels...
...and Linux distro... (Azure Sphere OS)
...as well as other Linux distributions (although Mariner is for internal use only, at least for now)

I've read all three links. Have you? Nowhere does it mention anything about replacing the NT kernel with the Linux one.

bzt wrote:Azure runs on Linux infrastructure, not on Windows

That's complete bullshit. I've been working on Azure for over 4 years. Azure does not "run on Linux infrastructure".

bzt wrote:I on the other hand, always back up my claims with many references:

More like you post a bunch of outdated and random links that aren't backing your claim.

Btw, where are the references for your claim that Azure runs on Linux infrastructure?

bzt wrote:it runs more Linux than Windows VMs

Yes, there are more Linux VMs than Windows VMs running in Azure because customers setup their VMs to run Linux. That's why Microsoft supports Linux, they are responding to the needs of customers. If they hadn't allowed people to run Linux VMs on Azure, their cloud offerings would never have been successful. This is smart. It doesn't mean that there is any Linux infrastructure in there (there isn't). It also doesn't mean that Microsoft is about to replace the NT kernel with the Linux one.

Similarly, you can run Windows VMs on both AWS and Google Cloud. It's not because Amazon or Google is running their infrastructure on Windows, it's because they want more customers. You know, more business brings more money. It's very basic maths.

Here is an article that summarizes what Microsoft has been doing with Linux and where this is going. It was written less than a year ago. Amongst other things, it says this: "But forget the idea of throwing away the Windows kernel and replacing it with a Linux kernel(...)".

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/wh ... en-source/

iansjack wrote:labelling people who disagree with you "trolls,"

I have all the right to call them like that, because that's what they do, look at this: ARM SystemReady topic, nobody can deny that all of their posts are off-topic, aggressive with the only purpose of provoking fights (specially zaval). There's nothing about "disagreement" on technical questions, all they want is provoking, nothing else. Here they are trying to do the same. Don't help them.

iansjack wrote:they are demonstrably posting verifiable facts.

Verifiable? Facts? How? Kzinti hasn't posted any links (he just referred to *MY* link, which he said isn't a valid source), and you haven't checked my links either (Miux page is an April fool's joke, but the links in that article are all valid, just as all the other links in my post).

It is a well known fact that Nadella turned M$ towards Open Source deliberately on purpose and that that was a strategic desidion, you can verify that. You can also verify the existence of Linux kernel on Windows (WSL), M$ created Linux distributions (Azure Sphere OS, CBL-Mariner) etc. those are the all verifiable facts. A well-informed OS developer has no doubt that M$ has an increasing interest in Linux, only a troll would say otherwise.

Cheers,
bzt

kzinti wrote: Yes, there are more Linux VMs than Windows VMs running in Azure because customers setup their VMs to run Linux. That's why Microsoft supports Linux, they are responding to the needs of customers. If they hadn't allowed people to run Linux VMs on Azure, their cloud offerings would never have been successful. This is smart. It doesn't mean that there is any Linux infrastructure in there (there isn't). It also doesn't mean that Microsoft is about to replace the NT kernel with the Linux one.

The big point of relevance that Azure has to whether Microsoft might consider rekerneling Windows is not that Azure infrastructure runs on Linux (it doesn't), but that as Azure makes up more and more of their revenue stream, they are less dependent on Windows revenues, so the barrier to entry for a rekernelling effort isn't as high (they don't end up betting the company on its success). That said, there are companies that have bet the company on a transition in the past (e.g, Apple with OSX, but they were in a situation where they needed to take risks to survive).

linguofreak wrote:Windows is not that Azure infrastructure runs on Linux (it doesn't)

This page says otherwise, however I'm not sure how accurate wikipedia is on this matter:

Linux-based operating systems power the company's Azure cloud services.

Furthermore Wired says so too, and in this M$ blog post they have admitted that at least part of the Azure infrastructure is indeed running on Linux:

The Azure Cloud Switch (ACS) is our foray into building our own software for running network devices like switches. It is a cross-platform modular operating system for data center networking built on Linux.

Cheers,
bzt