5 ms·

I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. I think people should

I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. I think people should know there are alternatives.

thinkxl 9y ago
> I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. You are right, but as you said, is good to have alternatives. > It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. Good, is healthy to have competition.
52-6F-62 9y ago
That's a generally valid concern, but I don't think I can see that ever really happening. It's really just a compatibility space, no? There is a bit of a contrarian culture here, lately. Some skepticism is healthy, but too much is toxic. As a general optimist and hopeful, I like to try and find good where I can without being suckered by hocus or sly marketing. Moving forward and growing outward should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
- seiferteric 9y ago
  I know what you mean, but you will never see MS contributing to Wine will you? Will we ever see office for linux? Why can't we get a proper POSIX layer for windows (like they used to offer)?
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    You've got a good point. I believe personally that there are great people working at MS (because I know one or two... so I'll just take a leap and assume in general) -- so it seems like a problem of reining in the beast. Hell, Gates seems like a generally good person. It's the default nature of a corporation [read: monster] so large to consume as much as it can and become as powerful as it can. Such organizations are structured this way, and bend this way regardless, because of the framework they operate within. I hardly need to say this. MS started making some good ground recently, so maybe with further prodding and pressure, who knows. Everything you suggested sounds like easy wins for them. It's not like it would affect their core consumer base too much.
    - robertlagrant 9y ago
      Yeah I like Gates, much more than Jobs or Ellison, for example. I'm sure he was far from perfect, but he's pumped more money (and convinced others to pump more money) into big causes than probably most others on the planet. Ballmer on the other hand - both an idiot who stopped Microsoft doing much good for ten years, supported a stupid HR manager in her talent-scaring practices, and also helped give MS its bad reputation. Good job mate.
    - hueving 9y ago
      Good people work for Oracle as well, but that doesn't mean oracle isn't a destructive open source participant.
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        Surely it's a similar problem to MS. "Reining in the beast" so to speak. Corporations, any for-profit corporation, are all by their nature (if you can call it that) for the express purpose of making money in their raw functioning. It would take a purposeful, active measure to sway the actions a corporate body would take (or should take). Not saying MS is an innocent party in the slightest.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    > you will never see MS contributing to Wine will you? This is basically asking Microsoft to open source Windows. > Will we ever see office for linux? They already have Office for macOS, Android, and iOS. They also have SQL Server for Linux and .Net core. "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned. > Why can't we get a proper POSIX layer for windows (like they used to offer)? POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing.
    - seiferteric 9y ago
      OP said it was about comparability, but MS does not care about compatibility unless it's in their favor, that's the point. > "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned. Well maybe if office and other applications were available it would be? That's the point. > POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing. Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS. Pretty much all that stuff will run on BSD/MacOS/Linux/*Nix due to POSIX compatibility.
      - wvenable 9y ago
        > Well maybe if office and other applications were available it would be? That's the point. Where are all the non-Microsoft applications for Linux? Where is Photoshop? What about the thousands of other software vendors? > Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS. Getting Linux software ported to MacOS is and has been non-trivial. A lot of effort went into that and for the longest time Homebrew lagged behind. If you're on MacOS you're lucky it's a popular platform and people put in the effort. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here anyway -- why should Microsoft their own flavor of POSIX compatible UNIX (again) over building something compatible directly with the Linux kernel. What advantage is the former?
  - watwut 9y ago
    Given that Microsoft is one of largest contributor to linux, I would not blame them for not contributing also where Linux directly competes with them. They would absolutely deserve criticism if they restart ugly fud campaigns again. But as of now, the two seem to be at peace.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Microsoft needs to make sure Linux runs well under their virtualisation tools. If it doesn't, Microsoft will end up being kicked out of the datacenter as well, as Windows runs just fine under VMWare or KVM and virtualisation drives better hardware usage. Having Windows run only on virtualized hardware is an existential threat to Microsoft.
    - kasabali 9y ago
      > Microsoft is one of largest contributor to linux, Citation needed. And please don't quote that 5 years old statistic of a one time contribution.

I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. I think people should know there are alternatives.

thinkxl 9y ago

> I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. You are right, but as you said, is good to have alternatives. > It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. Good, is healthy to have competition.

52-6F-62 9y ago

That's a generally valid concern, but I don't think I can see that ever really happening. It's really just a compatibility space, no? There is a bit of a contrarian culture here, lately. Some skepticism is healthy, but too much is toxic. As a general optimist and hopeful, I like to try and find good where I can without being suckered by hocus or sly marketing. Moving forward and growing outward should be a good thing, shouldn't it?

seiferteric 9y ago
I know what you mean, but you will never see MS contributing to Wine will you? Will we ever see office for linux? Why can't we get a proper POSIX layer for windows (like they used to offer)?
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  You've got a good point. I believe personally that there are great people working at MS (because I know one or two... so I'll just take a leap and assume in general) -- so it seems like a problem of reining in the beast. Hell, Gates seems like a generally good person. It's the default nature of a corporation [read: monster] so large to consume as much as it can and become as powerful as it can. Such organizations are structured this way, and bend this way regardless, because of the framework they operate within. I hardly need to say this. MS started making some good ground recently, so maybe with further prodding and pressure, who knows. Everything you suggested sounds like easy wins for them. It's not like it would affect their core consumer base too much.
  - robertlagrant 9y ago
    Yeah I like Gates, much more than Jobs or Ellison, for example. I'm sure he was far from perfect, but he's pumped more money (and convinced others to pump more money) into big causes than probably most others on the planet. Ballmer on the other hand - both an idiot who stopped Microsoft doing much good for ten years, supported a stupid HR manager in her talent-scaring practices, and also helped give MS its bad reputation. Good job mate.
  - hueving 9y ago
    Good people work for Oracle as well, but that doesn't mean oracle isn't a destructive open source participant.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      Surely it's a similar problem to MS. "Reining in the beast" so to speak. Corporations, any for-profit corporation, are all by their nature (if you can call it that) for the express purpose of making money in their raw functioning. It would take a purposeful, active measure to sway the actions a corporate body would take (or should take). Not saying MS is an innocent party in the slightest.
- wvenable 9y ago
  > you will never see MS contributing to Wine will you? This is basically asking Microsoft to open source Windows. > Will we ever see office for linux? They already have Office for macOS, Android, and iOS. They also have SQL Server for Linux and .Net core. "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned. > Why can't we get a proper POSIX layer for windows (like they used to offer)? POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing.
  - seiferteric 9y ago
    OP said it was about comparability, but MS does not care about compatibility unless it's in their favor, that's the point. > "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned. Well maybe if office and other applications were available it would be? That's the point. > POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing. Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS. Pretty much all that stuff will run on BSD/MacOS/Linux/*Nix due to POSIX compatibility.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      > Well maybe if office and other applications were available it would be? That's the point. Where are all the non-Microsoft applications for Linux? Where is Photoshop? What about the thousands of other software vendors? > Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS. Getting Linux software ported to MacOS is and has been non-trivial. A lot of effort went into that and for the longest time Homebrew lagged behind. If you're on MacOS you're lucky it's a popular platform and people put in the effort. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here anyway -- why should Microsoft their own flavor of POSIX compatible UNIX (again) over building something compatible directly with the Linux kernel. What advantage is the former?
- watwut 9y ago
  Given that Microsoft is one of largest contributor to linux, I would not blame them for not contributing also where Linux directly competes with them. They would absolutely deserve criticism if they restart ugly fud campaigns again. But as of now, the two seem to be at peace.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Microsoft needs to make sure Linux runs well under their virtualisation tools. If it doesn't, Microsoft will end up being kicked out of the datacenter as well, as Windows runs just fine under VMWare or KVM and virtualisation drives better hardware usage. Having Windows run only on virtualized hardware is an existential threat to Microsoft.
  - kasabali 9y ago
    > Microsoft is one of largest contributor to linux, Citation needed. And please don't quote that 5 years old statistic of a one time contribution.