3 ms·

Could you explain to me what you think an Extinguish step would look like in that sequence? Because I don't think there is a realistic one, and I don't think Mi

by m12k 6y ago

Could you explain to me what you think an Extinguish step would look like in that sequence? Because I don't think there is a realistic one, and I don't think Microsoft thinks so either.

skohan 6y ago
I think it's hyperbolic to imagine that MS will manage to fully extinguish Linux outside of WSL, but that's not the only way they could damage the linux ecosystem by leveraging the foothold they are building in the FOSS world. It's not so hard to imagine picking up a legacy project at some point in the future, and pretty much having to develop it on Windows and deploy to Azure because of some WSL-specific dependencies baked into the framework it's built on. That's just one scenario, but the point is why would you expect that they wouldn't leverage their market-share to disadvantage competitors if they ever got into position to do so? Just because they aren't in that position now doesn't mean we shouldn't be put off by the fact that they're building those levers to fragment the ecosystem now.
generalk 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression here is that Windows Subsystem for Linux will support DX12, but not broader Linux support for DX12. So if you want a machine that can play games and run a Linux dev toolchain, that would require a Windows install. If you can incentivize folks who may never have installed Windows to do so, and keep them there as the only place they can both play games and use their preferred dev environment, then you've extinguished that portion of the desktop linux install base. EDIT: Also I absolutely love the "I don't think Microsoft thinks so either." Microsoft is a for-profit corporation who's eyeing a way to get users who traditionally avoid them to come to their platform and stay there. They aren't some benevolent font of cool tech, they're trying to sell you products.
- m12k 6y ago
  I agree, when we look at Microsoft's motivation, considering them driven by profit makes more sense than anything else. Hence why I'm critiquing comments that seem to think Microsoft is driven by some innate desire to destroy Linux and FOSS. They're not, they just want to make money, but back when their making money was based on Windows, and they thought Linux was an existential threat to that, those two goals coincided. Today, I think Microsoft cares much more about building up Azure to beat AWS and become the biggest cloud platform - they don't care if the servers are running Linux or Windows, as long as it's running on Azure - being seen by developers as Linux-hostile runs counter to that goal. So again, I'm not saying they wouldn't go for an Extinguish if they could, but I think they know that they can't and they have a strategy where they don't need to.
  - generalk 6y ago
    We're not talking about Microsoft's cloud / server strategy though. Linux as a server OS is different from Linux as a development platform. The two have nothing in common except the word "Linux." Microsoft is taking steps to embrace desktop Linux, we've seen that with WSL. Instead of ditching Windows for a different/better dev platform, just keep using Windows. They are extending their own desktop Linux by adding the capability to use DX12 in Linux, so long as it's run on Windows. Note that they are not adding this capability to a straight Ubuntu install, let alone any other distribution. To claim "Microsoft knows they can't Extinguish desktop Linux" is naive at best, and shill-like at worst. They don't need to completely eliminate desktop Linux for EEE to apply here. the "Extinguish" part comes naturally from fewer and fewer devs choosing an alternative to Windows.
    - m12k 6y ago
      > We're not talking about Microsoft's cloud / server strategy though Yes we are. I was talking about the motivation behind their action. And I think it's quite obvious that 'get businesses to use Azure over AWS' or 'get web developers to use Windows instead of Macs' is a much, much more likely motivation than 'Extinguish desktop Linux'. Why would they care about that? Desktop Linux is absolutely no threat to them, and there's no money to be made winning that fight more than they already have. Know what, I'll grant you that in their attempt to steal web devs over from MacOS, and getting a better user story for a web dev deploying Linux servers from Windows, they will probably also hurt desktop Linux - if nothing else, simply by creating another viable alternative for devs that isn't MacOS. But I can pretty much guarantee you that extinguishing desktop Linux is not their motivation - it simply makes no sense.
lkap 6y ago
The extinguish step is breaking the spirit of the FOSS developers.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  They already did that to themselves by throwing away GPL.
scbrg 6y ago
What you're saying is essentially: If we can't come up with a way in which Microsoft could proceed to the Extinguish phase, they can't. Because clearly, if we, after spending five minutes thinking about it, can't come up with something, then it is also impossible for this company that has spent three decades perfecting the concept, and literally has billions of dollars to throw at the problem. Presumably because we smart and they dumb. Or something, I don't know? Personally, I think that their thirty years of experience and billions of dollars might make it possible for them to come up with a plan I wouldn't have thought of.
- prirun 6y ago
  I agree with you. Microsoft plays a long game. Through giving out promotional / free copies of Excel, with 1-2-3 compatiblity, they killed Lotus. The same with Word and Wordperfect. The same with Netscape. And those companies completely dominated their markets. As market leaders maybe they were lazy, taking profits, and not enhancing their product. That happens with most market leaders. But the fact is, it is impossible to charge $150 for WordPerfect when Microsoft is giving away a compatible word processor. As their only / primary source of revenue, WordPerfect and Lotus could not survive a free competitor. They don't have to kill Linux, and in fact, would not want that IMO, because then someone might bring another pesky antitrust suit against them. But if they can dent it in any way, they will. For those who say Microsoft has changed, is a different company, is embracing open-source, etc.: if that truly is the case, wouldn't they release DirectX for all Linux distributions, not just theirs?
maelkum 6y ago
I think the Shadowrun adage is applicable here: "Watch your back, shoot straight, and never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon." Microsoft is the dragon here. Even if it appears friendly you still don't cut a deal with it, or you become a pawn in its game.

by m12k 6y ago

Could you explain to me what you think an Extinguish step would look like in that sequence? Because I don't think there is a realistic one, and I don't think Microsoft thinks so either.

skohan 6y ago

I think it's hyperbolic to imagine that MS will manage to fully extinguish Linux outside of WSL, but that's not the only way they could damage the linux ecosystem by leveraging the foothold they are building in the FOSS world. It's not so hard to imagine picking up a legacy project at some point in the future, and pretty much having to develop it on Windows and deploy to Azure because of some WSL-specific dependencies baked into the framework it's built on. That's just one scenario, but the point is why would you expect that they wouldn't leverage their market-share to disadvantage competitors if they ever got into position to do so? Just because they aren't in that position now doesn't mean we shouldn't be put off by the fact that they're building those levers to fragment the ecosystem now.

generalk 6y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression here is that Windows Subsystem for Linux will support DX12, but not broader Linux support for DX12. So if you want a machine that can play games and run a Linux dev toolchain, that would require a Windows install. If you can incentivize folks who may never have installed Windows to do so, and keep them there as the only place they can both play games and use their preferred dev environment, then you've extinguished that portion of the desktop linux install base. EDIT: Also I absolutely love the "I don't think Microsoft thinks so either." Microsoft is a for-profit corporation who's eyeing a way to get users who traditionally avoid them to come to their platform and stay there. They aren't some benevolent font of cool tech, they're trying to sell you products.

m12k 6y ago
I agree, when we look at Microsoft's motivation, considering them driven by profit makes more sense than anything else. Hence why I'm critiquing comments that seem to think Microsoft is driven by some innate desire to destroy Linux and FOSS. They're not, they just want to make money, but back when their making money was based on Windows, and they thought Linux was an existential threat to that, those two goals coincided. Today, I think Microsoft cares much more about building up Azure to beat AWS and become the biggest cloud platform - they don't care if the servers are running Linux or Windows, as long as it's running on Azure - being seen by developers as Linux-hostile runs counter to that goal. So again, I'm not saying they wouldn't go for an Extinguish if they could, but I think they know that they can't and they have a strategy where they don't need to.
- generalk 6y ago
  We're not talking about Microsoft's cloud / server strategy though. Linux as a server OS is different from Linux as a development platform. The two have nothing in common except the word "Linux." Microsoft is taking steps to embrace desktop Linux, we've seen that with WSL. Instead of ditching Windows for a different/better dev platform, just keep using Windows. They are extending their own desktop Linux by adding the capability to use DX12 in Linux, so long as it's run on Windows. Note that they are not adding this capability to a straight Ubuntu install, let alone any other distribution. To claim "Microsoft knows they can't Extinguish desktop Linux" is naive at best, and shill-like at worst. They don't need to completely eliminate desktop Linux for EEE to apply here. the "Extinguish" part comes naturally from fewer and fewer devs choosing an alternative to Windows.
  - m12k 6y ago
    > We're not talking about Microsoft's cloud / server strategy though Yes we are. I was talking about the motivation behind their action. And I think it's quite obvious that 'get businesses to use Azure over AWS' or 'get web developers to use Windows instead of Macs' is a much, much more likely motivation than 'Extinguish desktop Linux'. Why would they care about that? Desktop Linux is absolutely no threat to them, and there's no money to be made winning that fight more than they already have. Know what, I'll grant you that in their attempt to steal web devs over from MacOS, and getting a better user story for a web dev deploying Linux servers from Windows, they will probably also hurt desktop Linux - if nothing else, simply by creating another viable alternative for devs that isn't MacOS. But I can pretty much guarantee you that extinguishing desktop Linux is not their motivation - it simply makes no sense.

lkap 6y ago

The extinguish step is breaking the spirit of the FOSS developers.

pjmlp 6y ago
They already did that to themselves by throwing away GPL.

scbrg 6y ago

What you're saying is essentially: If we can't come up with a way in which Microsoft could proceed to the Extinguish phase, they can't. Because clearly, if we, after spending five minutes thinking about it, can't come up with something, then it is also impossible for this company that has spent three decades perfecting the concept, and literally has billions of dollars to throw at the problem. Presumably because we smart and they dumb. Or something, I don't know? Personally, I think that their thirty years of experience and billions of dollars might make it possible for them to come up with a plan I wouldn't have thought of.

prirun 6y ago
I agree with you. Microsoft plays a long game. Through giving out promotional / free copies of Excel, with 1-2-3 compatiblity, they killed Lotus. The same with Word and Wordperfect. The same with Netscape. And those companies completely dominated their markets. As market leaders maybe they were lazy, taking profits, and not enhancing their product. That happens with most market leaders. But the fact is, it is impossible to charge $150 for WordPerfect when Microsoft is giving away a compatible word processor. As their only / primary source of revenue, WordPerfect and Lotus could not survive a free competitor. They don't have to kill Linux, and in fact, would not want that IMO, because then someone might bring another pesky antitrust suit against them. But if they can dent it in any way, they will. For those who say Microsoft has changed, is a different company, is embracing open-source, etc.: if that truly is the case, wouldn't they release DirectX for all Linux distributions, not just theirs?

maelkum 6y ago

I think the Shadowrun adage is applicable here: "Watch your back, shoot straight, and never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon." Microsoft is the dragon here. Even if it appears friendly you still don't cut a deal with it, or you become a pawn in its game.