Microsoft Loves Linux, But Does Linux Love Microsoft?
Are Microsoft's recent moves in the Linux and open source space good for the channel? It would seem so. But in a sign that all is not as peachy as it appears, some open source advocates are now attacking Microsoft for charges of exploiting GNU/Linux in an attempt to gain more partnerships while giving little back.
Are Microsoft’s recent moves in the Linux and open source space good for the channel? It would seem so. But in a sign that all is not as peachy as it appears, some open source advocates are now attacking Microsoft for charges of exploiting GNU/Linux in an attempt to gain more partnerships while giving little back.
In many ways, Microsoft’s declaration that it “loves Linux” seems good for businesses. By open sourcing the code of some Microsoft products, adding GNU/Linux options to the Azure cloud and now bringing SQL Server to Linux, the company has created far more integration options than it provided previously.
Want to use a Linux environment but a Microsoft database for your cloud service? You can now do that. Looking to integrate Microsoft code into your product? You can do that, too, at least in certain cases.
But not all strands of the open source community are welcoming the open source-Microsoft rapprochement. Christine Hall at FOSS Force filed an analysis this week in which she wrote that Microsoft’s moves “are based solely on greed” and represent a “one-way street” to drive more business for Microsoft.
Similarly, Roy Schestowitz, one of the staunchest of the younger new generation of open source acolytes, writes that Microsoft has “blackmailed Linux.”
At first glance, criticisms like these may seem merely to reflect deep-seated misgivings toward Microsoft on the part of open source fans who represent the more ideological part of the open source community. It would be easy to write them off as radical viewpoints with little mainstream significance.
But that would be a mistake. The lingering lack of trust between some quarters of the open source world and Microsoft has real implications for the way the channel can make use of Microsoft’s new Linux-friendly products. It means organizations that currently use open source environments will not be as likely as Microsoft would like to adopt the Microsoft solutions that can now run on said environments. It also means there may be less collaboration between open source coders and companies, of the sort that can bring new innovations for the reseller market, than there would be if there existed more genuine trust.
To put it simply: Peace is profitable, and peace is what the Linux community and Microsoft might seem to have finally achieved. But if you dig below the surface, you find that deep tensions still exist. Solutions that integrate Microsoft and open source products, and partnerships between Redmond and open source companies, may not begin proliferating as much as recent headlines would suggest.
I’ll believe MSFT “loves”
I’ll believe MSFT “loves” Linux when they give us a reasonable, event driven way to update unix user groups from AD distribution lists as those lists change. Polling LDAP is not reasonable.
AD is the last bastion of MSFT’s monopoly. It’s where they’ve got the enterprise by the short hairs. If they’re serious about this alleged ideological change, they’ll open that up.
M$ claims to “love” Linux,
M$ claims to “love” Linux, but they are still extorting licensing fees from Android and Linux users for un-named (probably non-existent) patents. M$ “loves” to profit from Linux is mor like it, but its a one way street!
War is more profitable than
War is more profitable than Peace for a lot of supporters behind Open Source when it comes to databases.
Oracle DB that has been on Linux for a long time has not prevented EnterpriseDB providing tools for those customers to migrate to Postgresql.
Also the Linux world has already had one case of closed source bate then bail.
People forget Internet Explorer for Unix.
Why should I trust a company
Why should I trust a company that is screwing their users? I was once a Microsoft-evangelist, now they are just awfully distasteful. But thats OK, the solutions are nine thousand times better then what MS will ever offer!
more like Microstof woos
more like Microstof woos linux, and makes some bucks on the way.
This whole Microsoft loves
This whole Microsoft loves Linux feels completely psychopathic.
Microsoft only cares about bringing more business to themselves, anything Microsoft does is for the sole interest of Microsoft.
That in itself shouldn’t be a problem, but they have made a habit on scorching anything that comes into contact with them as an added bonus, and I do not see any indications that they haven’t abandoned such behaviour.
As per their products on Linux/Unix, not only IE 4 was a fiasco, their Hyper-V drivers were an unmitigated disaster until people from the community step over to fix them, and that’s why they got admitted on the Linux kernel tree. (I still remember seeing disk geometries listed twice in the system.)
Microsoft hasn’t managed ever to produce a single piece of open source software where you can do a simple configure & make.
Giving their past efforts, why does anyone think their SQL product on Linux is going to be that great?
I do not trust them, each time they had an opportunity to do something good they ended doing even more damage than anyone anticipated, Google the OOXML ISO fiasco.
It’s not some undefined
It’s not some undefined mistrust. Whilst Microsoft claims they love Linux, they keep bullying more and more Linux vendors into questionable patent “deals”. Only two this week.
It’s not that Microsoft is
It’s not that Microsoft is closed source that I have a problem with as a Linux user. I run a more than average number of closed-source applications on my Linux boxes. It’s Microsoft’s seriously flawed business morals, ethics and practices that makes me dislike them and whether I’m right or wrong, it certainly feels there is a more underhand reason for them embracing Linux the way they are now.
Mind you, having systemd pushed on to me makes me feel the same way about organizations within the Linux industry too…. and yes, I have learned about systemd intensively the last few months and I still don’t like it, still have problems with it and would still like to be able to choose mainstream distributions without it.
> some open source advocates
> some open source advocates are now attacking Microsoft for charges of exploiting GNU/Linux in an attempt to gain more partnerships while giving little back.
That’s right, and there’s even the tried-and-true acronym for M$’s exploiting GNU/Linux all for themselves….EEE!
(EEE of course stands for Embrace, Extend, Extinguish)
Microsoft may or may not love
Microsoft may or may not love Linux. I personally don’t believe they do. But Linux for sure doesn’t love Microsoft, simply because one can’t love a piece of sh!t. Nonetheless, Linux is still open to interoperability with Microsoft just because Linux is open in general. So there may be collaboration but not love. The day Microsoft dies, this world will be a better world.
Hi Cris.
Microsoft’s latest
Hi Cris.
Microsoft’s latest actions and declarations speak volumes of the growing importance of Linux, which has long grown above the 1% user base their paid for studies insist in proclaiming ad nauseam.
They have come to realize there is big business going with Linux.
With over 70 servers and some 600 Linux workstations I have installed myself, I can atest it first hand.
On a second line I don’t like to be referred to as a Linux fan. I think this term is an unrespectful anachronism, which modern day journalists cannot afford to use anymore.
Best regards.
This is pure nonsense.
This is pure nonsense.
Anyone ever hear the
Anyone ever hear the expression “..the proof is in the pudding..?” The main reason why a lot of Open Source advocates and Unix/Linux users distrust Microsoft, is quite simply because: we’ve seen this type of behavior before. SCO?….Novell? its not that the Linux / open source community hates Microsoft, its that we don’t trust them. No matter how much they might appear to actually and genuinely love Linux, three’s the undercurrent of seeing this before that causes the distancing from them. As for MSFT giving bits and pieces of itself up to the open source community? Why? We already HAVE SQL programs…..we already HAVE cloud-centric software and networking components. Why all of a sudden does MS feel they have to “donate” their wares to open source?……when all along? open source has just created what was needed, when it was needed the most? If Microsoft was an actual person?…and not a corporate enterprise?..I’d look it straight in the face and say: “I personally think you full of sh*t, I don’t trust you nor your peace offerings, keep it and move on we don’t want you, we don’t NEED you and we’re not going to help make you richer!..” but hey, that’s just me!…LoL!
keep a VERY close eye on the
keep a VERY close eye on the Microsoft “partnership” with canonical. I smell a rat, a very BIG rat
hears why
1),canonical are responsible for bringing Linux to a wider user community. therefore that gives Microsoft another avenue to push its version of what people should use on their computers
2), Ubuntu uses Debian at its core( bear in mind that, unless I am mistaken there was some friction between the Debian and Ubuntu development communities). this gives Microsoft a potential lever to try and infiltrate Debian and in so doing try to dictate their development and distribution policies
3), Debian has a very open model with regards to its development and distribution process and have very high technical standards in their work( hence the long gaps between releases). while Microsoft talk the talk on openness it is with several caveats.
the net result is that Microsoft want Linux to fit into its business model. not the open source model adopted by the Linux development community.
I am not saying the proprietary is inherently bad, but the marketing tactics employed by Microsoft raise some serious questions over the authenticity of anything that Satya Nadela says on his showy podcasts. ( dazzle the audience with wow and awe and hopefully they will miss the more subtle nuances behind it all)oh and maybe I should add Terry Myerson to the list as well.
one thing I total abhor about windows 10 is its intrusiveness, even if you adjust all privacy settings in an attempt to counter that, Microsoft quietly reaches into your computer via”updates” and reverses many ( if not all) of your changes forcing you to run a full security audit on a regular basis( and you cannot, as far as i know, write a nice script to ensure your settings stay as you intend them to be.