4 ms·

What's positive about this: more options for developers. What's negative about this: Microsoft is trying to eat Linux. I doubt they will succeed but that's in f

What's positive about this: more options for developers. What's negative about this: Microsoft is trying to eat Linux. I doubt they will succeed but that's in fact what they are trying to do.

danieldk 9y ago
Are they? It seems that a lot of their work (WSL, VS Code, etc.) seems to be focused on building developer mindshare, which was largely taken by Apple [1] in the last 1.5 decade. After the Windows Phone and Windows 8 Metro fiascos, I think they realized that the 'launch the platform and the developers will come'-strategy does not work. tl;dr: this seems like a direct attempt to lure developers away from Apple's platforms. [1] To repeat a cliché: go to a developers conference and the majority of laptops will be MacBooks.
- ianai 9y ago
  Whether they want to eat Linux or not, I don't think they can. It will always be free.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    What if they bought Red Hat and SUSE. SUSE was acquired by Novell. It getting acquired again is conceivable. Red Hat is an unknown. Last one is Canonical. I think it could happen on the distro side where they get acquired, new stuff goes more proprietary, and so on. As I run it through my head, the main way Linux would stay free are through the remaining contributors to kernel: IBM and Oracle. Mainly IBM since they contribute a ton of code, use Linux extensively, and previously put $1 billion on line to fight Microsoft and SCO. They fought them back before. Oracle's big on Linux these days. They'd probably hit them, too. So, what protects the ecosystem of usable, free Linux is the self-interest of massive, proprietary vendors along with contributions from a few distro's. I probably wouldn't have called that happening 20 years ago.
    - curt15 9y ago
      >As I run it through my head, the main way Linux would stay free are through the remaining contributors to kernel: IBM and Oracle. What about Google, which uses Ubuntu for its internal workstations?
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        I thought they ran on Macs after the big hack. Them on Ubuntu is new to me. If so, then they might fight too. I shouldve added them and Amazon anyway due to Linux-based clouds plus a history of legal battles protecting their interests. Good catch!

What's positive about this: more options for developers. What's negative about this: Microsoft is trying to eat Linux. I doubt they will succeed but that's in fact what they are trying to do.

danieldk 9y ago

Are they? It seems that a lot of their work (WSL, VS Code, etc.) seems to be focused on building developer mindshare, which was largely taken by Apple [1] in the last 1.5 decade. After the Windows Phone and Windows 8 Metro fiascos, I think they realized that the 'launch the platform and the developers will come'-strategy does not work. tl;dr: this seems like a direct attempt to lure developers away from Apple's platforms. [1] To repeat a cliché: go to a developers conference and the majority of laptops will be MacBooks.

ianai 9y ago
Whether they want to eat Linux or not, I don't think they can. It will always be free.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  What if they bought Red Hat and SUSE. SUSE was acquired by Novell. It getting acquired again is conceivable. Red Hat is an unknown. Last one is Canonical. I think it could happen on the distro side where they get acquired, new stuff goes more proprietary, and so on. As I run it through my head, the main way Linux would stay free are through the remaining contributors to kernel: IBM and Oracle. Mainly IBM since they contribute a ton of code, use Linux extensively, and previously put $1 billion on line to fight Microsoft and SCO. They fought them back before. Oracle's big on Linux these days. They'd probably hit them, too. So, what protects the ecosystem of usable, free Linux is the self-interest of massive, proprietary vendors along with contributions from a few distro's. I probably wouldn't have called that happening 20 years ago.
  - curt15 9y ago
    >As I run it through my head, the main way Linux would stay free are through the remaining contributors to kernel: IBM and Oracle. What about Google, which uses Ubuntu for its internal workstations?
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      I thought they ran on Macs after the big hack. Them on Ubuntu is new to me. If so, then they might fight too. I shouldve added them and Amazon anyway due to Linux-based clouds plus a history of legal battles protecting their interests. Good catch!