3 ms·

This isn't really new, it's just Red Hat being late to the party. From Jun 6, 2012: "The Linux services will go live on Azure at 4 a.m. EDT on Thursday. At tha

by scholia 11y ago

This isn't really new, it's just Red Hat being late to the party. From Jun 6, 2012: "The Linux services will go live on Azure at 4 a.m. EDT on Thursday. At that time, the Azure portal will offer a number of Linux distributions, including Suse Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP2, OpenSuse 12.01, CentOS 6.2 and Canonical Ubuntu 12.04. Azure users will be able to choose and deploy a Linux distribution from the Microsoft Windows Azure Image Gallery." http://www.pcworld.com/article/257073/microsoft_to_run_linux_on_azure.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/257073/microsoft_to_run_linux... Or you could always load your own distro of choice in Hyper-V.

toyg 11y ago
Or rather Microsoft desperately clinging on RedHat to make its cloud proposition look commercially legit. I mean, look at that list: the first two items are for SuSE, a distribution that is hardly popular these days, then you have "knockoff RedHat" CentOS and "hobbyist's choice" Ubuntu. I'm surprised they left off Debian, I guess that's still a bit too hippy. In any case, not the stuff of dreams, from a commercial standpoint. So you can spin it both ways, really.
- scholia 11y ago
  Was simply pointing out the fact that Linux has been on Azure for years, because apparently some people don't know that. Indeed, according to Microsoft: "More than 20 percent of Azure virtual machines run on Linux." http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html You're welcome to spin anything you like.
  - toyg 11y ago
    Yeah, but "Red Hat being late" is not a fact, it's placing the burden on Red Hat for getting their stuff running on Microsoft's systems for Microsoft's benefit. "Microsoft was late getting Red Hat on board" is the exact same fact with the opposite spin. No spin would have been "both companies ironed out an agreement allowing their products to be commercially supported when working together, three years after Azure launched support for Linux systems". I know, not sexy.
    - scholia 11y ago
      Red Hat could have been one of the first Linuxes on Azure, if it had wanted. But back in 2013, it said: "Red Hat CEO: We don't need Microsoft to succeed" http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--we-don-t-need-microsoft-to-succeed.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--... I don't see why you're quibbling about "late". It's a fact that it's more than three years later than a bunch of other versions. But hey, you can have your own spin.
      - toyg 11y ago
        Note how RedHat didn't say that: if you read the actual article (despite being from InfoWorld): > InfoWorld: Microsoft has a close business relationship with Suse Linux. That seems to be Microsoft's Linux of choice, and the company doesn't seem interested in having the same kind of partnership with Red Hat. Is that a problem for Red Hat? > Jim Whitehurst: We'd be happy to work on interoperability with Microsoft or anyone else. So yeah, Microsoft made a specific choice to partner with SuSE. RH said "whatever". Three years later, an agreement was finally struck between the two. Did RH "come around"? Or did MS finally recognize SuSE is a losing proposition? You don't know and I don't know, but implying one side took action without having any proof for it is, well, spin.
        scholia 11y ago
        I know Microsoft pretty well, and it would have wanted to support as many versions as possible, within the available time-frame. It obviously didn't just support SuSE, so your implied either/or is just yet more of your spin. I don't know Red Hat that well (it's a few years since we've talked), but it has a strong focus on its own cloud business (1). It might have seen Azure as a rival to Red Hat cloud services, but that's just my speculation. (1) https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing BELOW > I have no horse in this, no investment, nothing; I just don't like unsupported bias. Can you say the same? If you really don't like unsupported bias, perhaps you shouldn't post comments that reveal so much of it ;-) > Yes, it is "just your speculation". You could also cut out the cheap tricks. I referred specifically to the comment on Red Hat's motives, not to anything else.

by scholia 11y ago

toyg 11y ago

Or rather Microsoft desperately clinging on RedHat to make its cloud proposition look commercially legit. I mean, look at that list: the first two items are for SuSE, a distribution that is hardly popular these days, then you have "knockoff RedHat" CentOS and "hobbyist's choice" Ubuntu. I'm surprised they left off Debian, I guess that's still a bit too hippy. In any case, not the stuff of dreams, from a commercial standpoint. So you can spin it both ways, really.

scholia 11y ago
Was simply pointing out the fact that Linux has been on Azure for years, because apparently some people don't know that. Indeed, according to Microsoft: "More than 20 percent of Azure virtual machines run on Linux." http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html You're welcome to spin anything you like.
- toyg 11y ago
  Yeah, but "Red Hat being late" is not a fact, it's placing the burden on Red Hat for getting their stuff running on Microsoft's systems for Microsoft's benefit. "Microsoft was late getting Red Hat on board" is the exact same fact with the opposite spin. No spin would have been "both companies ironed out an agreement allowing their products to be commercially supported when working together, three years after Azure launched support for Linux systems". I know, not sexy.
  - scholia 11y ago
    Red Hat could have been one of the first Linuxes on Azure, if it had wanted. But back in 2013, it said: "Red Hat CEO: We don't need Microsoft to succeed" http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--we-don-t-need-microsoft-to-succeed.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--... I don't see why you're quibbling about "late". It's a fact that it's more than three years later than a bunch of other versions. But hey, you can have your own spin.
    - toyg 11y ago
      Note how RedHat didn't say that: if you read the actual article (despite being from InfoWorld): > InfoWorld: Microsoft has a close business relationship with Suse Linux. That seems to be Microsoft's Linux of choice, and the company doesn't seem interested in having the same kind of partnership with Red Hat. Is that a problem for Red Hat? > Jim Whitehurst: We'd be happy to work on interoperability with Microsoft or anyone else. So yeah, Microsoft made a specific choice to partner with SuSE. RH said "whatever". Three years later, an agreement was finally struck between the two. Did RH "come around"? Or did MS finally recognize SuSE is a losing proposition? You don't know and I don't know, but implying one side took action without having any proof for it is, well, spin.
      - scholia 11y ago
        I know Microsoft pretty well, and it would have wanted to support as many versions as possible, within the available time-frame. It obviously didn't just support SuSE, so your implied either/or is just yet more of your spin. I don't know Red Hat that well (it's a few years since we've talked), but it has a strong focus on its own cloud business (1). It might have seen Azure as a rival to Red Hat cloud services, but that's just my speculation. (1) https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing BELOW > I have no horse in this, no investment, nothing; I just don't like unsupported bias. Can you say the same? If you really don't like unsupported bias, perhaps you shouldn't post comments that reveal so much of it ;-) > Yes, it is "just your speculation". You could also cut out the cheap tricks. I referred specifically to the comment on Red Hat's motives, not to anything else.