4 ms·

>Microsoft loves Linux because it makes them money. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. I rather thought the point of the article was that Micros

>Microsoft loves Linux because it makes them money. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. I rather thought the point of the article was that Microsoft didn't actually love linux but pretended that it did to stave off irrelevance in markets where linux is kicking their ass (i.e. server). As he said, if they really loved linux and this isn't just another "embrace, extend, extinguish" ploy sugarcoated in PR niceties they'd be porting office and directx and outlook to linux. Which they're not.

sverhagen 7y ago
You're using "love" in different ways. I also love cookies, but I'm not in a committed, lifelong romance with them. (Well, maybe I am. Bad example.)
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
None if the examples given are particularly sensible. Turn Word into a webapp? This has been happening for years, but no web editor can offer even 50% of the functionality offered by Word. Office365 is competitive with GSuite. Drop Win32? That's basically asking Microsoft to commit suicide and destroy all companies who rely on windows to run their software. They were trying to get people to move to UWP, and look how hard that has been. Port DirectX? Maybe, don't know. Given that Unity and Unreal both support OpenGL, Metal, Vulkan, and they are available on Windows, would this make any difference?
- FpUser 7y ago
  DirectX 12 is actually more easy to swallow for the average Joe programmer than Vulcan so maybe it does make sense.
- pytester 7y ago
  If you define "sensible" as "might impact existing MS monopolies" then no, NONE of it is particularly sensible. Microsoft doesn't love Linux if it interferes with its monopolies. It never did and it never will. That's the whole point. It didn't turn over any new leaf like it claimed. It just adapted its existing strategy as a means to stave off impending irrelevance in the server market. Not turning over a new leaf WAS the "sensible" thing to do.
UglyToad 7y ago
My view of Microsoft, and I'd be interested to hear if it's bullshit from people who have worked there, is there isn't such an entity. The dev tools and .NET team actually like Linux, the Windows team hate those guys, the Office team hate everyone, the Skype team hate their lives, the Nokia team, well... Expecting a single determined vision from Microsoft isn't rational. It's multiple business units who don't really coordinate and just happen to share a logo. Again I've only formed this view from hints and allusions but it seems to explain a lot.

sverhagen 7y ago

You're using "love" in different ways. I also love cookies, but I'm not in a committed, lifelong romance with them. (Well, maybe I am. Bad example.)

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

None if the examples given are particularly sensible. Turn Word into a webapp? This has been happening for years, but no web editor can offer even 50% of the functionality offered by Word. Office365 is competitive with GSuite. Drop Win32? That's basically asking Microsoft to commit suicide and destroy all companies who rely on windows to run their software. They were trying to get people to move to UWP, and look how hard that has been. Port DirectX? Maybe, don't know. Given that Unity and Unreal both support OpenGL, Metal, Vulkan, and they are available on Windows, would this make any difference?

FpUser 7y ago
DirectX 12 is actually more easy to swallow for the average Joe programmer than Vulcan so maybe it does make sense.
pytester 7y ago
If you define "sensible" as "might impact existing MS monopolies" then no, NONE of it is particularly sensible. Microsoft doesn't love Linux if it interferes with its monopolies. It never did and it never will. That's the whole point. It didn't turn over any new leaf like it claimed. It just adapted its existing strategy as a means to stave off impending irrelevance in the server market. Not turning over a new leaf WAS the "sensible" thing to do.

UglyToad 7y ago

My view of Microsoft, and I'd be interested to hear if it's bullshit from people who have worked there, is there isn't such an entity. The dev tools and .NET team actually like Linux, the Windows team hate those guys, the Office team hate everyone, the Skype team hate their lives, the Nokia team, well... Expecting a single determined vision from Microsoft isn't rational. It's multiple business units who don't really coordinate and just happen to share a logo. Again I've only formed this view from hints and allusions but it seems to explain a lot.