Microsoft Developer Made the Most Changes To Linux 3.0 Code 348
sfcrazy sends this quote from the H:
"The 343 changes made by Microsoft developer K. Y. Srinivasan put him at the top of a list, created by LWN.net, of developers who made the most changes in the current development cycle for Linux 3.0. Along with a number of other 'change sets,' Microsoft provided a total of 361 changes, putting it in seventh place on the list of companies and groups that contributed code to the Linux kernel. By comparison, independent developers provided 1,085 change sets to Linux 3.0, while Red Hat provided 1,000 and Intel 839."
The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Informative)
... it really is useless trivia. What's more important is what the contributions are, specifically. Per TFA:
This work by Microsoft was to clean up the “Microsoft Hyper-V (HV) driver” so that the Microsoft driver would be included in the mainline Linux kernel. Microsoft originally submitted this set of code changes back in July 2009, but there were a lot of problems with it, and the Linux kernel developers insisted that it be fixed. The Linux community had a long list of issues with Microsoft’s code, but the good news is that Microsoft worked to improve the quality of its code so that it could be accepted into the Linux kernel. Other developers helped Microsoft get their code up to par, too. ( Steve Friedl has some comments about its early technical issues.
and why:
Getting code into the mainline Linux kernel release, instead of just existing as a separate patch, is vitally important for an organization if they want people to use their software (if it needs to be part of the Linux kernel, as this did). A counter-example is that the Xen developers let KVM zoom ahead of them, because the Xen developers failed to set a high priority on getting full support for Xen into the mainline Linux kernel. As Thorsten Leemhuis at The H says, “There are many indications that the Xen developers should have put more effort into merging Xen support into the official kernel earlier. After all, while Xen was giving developers and distribution users a hard time with the old kernel, a new virtualisation star was rising on the open source horizon: KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) In the beginning, KVM could not touch the functional scope and speed of Xen. But soon, open source developers, Linux distributors, and companies such as AMD, Intel and IBM became interested in KVM and contributed a number of improvements, so that KVM quickly caught up and even moved past Xen in some respects.” Xen may do well in the future, but this is still a cautionary tale.
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So? A contribution is a contribution, even if it is for selfish reasons.
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Informative)
I did not imply otherwise. My point is that the contribution and its nature are of more importance than the associated random statistical fluke.
Re: (Score:3)
To be a slashdot editor you must be able to spin like mad.
Re: (Score:2)
So? A contribution is a contribution, even if it is for selfish reasons.
Yes, but ...
1) All the contributions were within one module (all well and good, and that fine, but people should realize this was not some altruistic move by MS to "help" Linux).
2) Are multiple changes to add/fix comments included in the list of changes? I don't know, but that might artificially increase a contribution count, specifically if MS was working to get this particular module into "production".
Again, I agree it doesn't make a difference in terms of, "hey, they contributed", but it does help put th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since it was a Microsoft employee, I'm going to assume that it was really just one contribution and 360 patches to make it work.
Expect more patches soon.
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This. Some of the people on LKML pointed out that the guy's floods of ~180 patches at a time grossly violated the patch submission standards laid out in Documentation/SubmittingPatches ("Do not more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!"). I know it annoyed me, and it seemed like a huge amount of code churn for a driver in staging. I didn't realize until I saw this story what the driver was or who the author was.
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would Apple want to do that? Libdispatch runs on *BSD, Linux and Solaris, but on Linux and Solaris uses libkqueue to provide an emulation of the kqueue APIs and it only uses the kernel scheduling on Darwin and FreeBSD. If you write code using libdispatch, it works everywhere except Windows, but people using Linux get an inferior experience to people using FreeBSD or Darwin. That sounds pretty much idea from Apple's perspective.
Oh, and someone did implement kqueue on Linux a couple of years ago. It was rejected because the mess of timerfd, signalfd, and epoll() was considered better by the NIH mentality of the Linux kernel team. As someone who has used both, I'm always glad when I don't have to make my code work on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
stopped reading after "Yes, but ...".
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more importantly, contributing for selfish reasons creates a win-win situation. Contributing in a way that is detrimental to you, is detrimental for the community. It is important for people and organisations to realise that we want them to succeed in their enterprises.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the driving forces behind free and open source software. They see it as some kind of charity where the group "donating" code is losing out. Instead, groups should understand how they are going to benefit from contributing to a free software project before they do so. Benefit can come in the form of money, it can come in the form of eyeballs (attracting attention to an under serviced area), or it can simply come from the pleasure of contributing. These are all benefits.
Free and open source software allows more than one group to benefit from contributing to a project. You can't control how much benefit another group can get from a project, but the more you do to tie your success to the success of the project, the more you benefit you get from other people's contributions. Ideally, we want companies like MS to make money from the success of free software. The more they do so, the more they will understand the opportunities they are missing. The more they rely on our success, the more everyone benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
I don't have mod points, sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that completely ignores the issue of Microsoft claiming that Linux violates their patents. I wonder if Microsoft employees and legal counsel for Microsoft has signed off on any patents that might be included in the module work they are doing for their own virtualization to be included in the Linux kernel. You ask me and I see absolutely no point in including Microsoft's module. They have had 2 years and done absolutely nothing with it. All the changes that were done were lots of little ones and the m
Re: (Score:3)
If hey, as a company, published this under the GPL, then you may change the code and construct derived code based on it and use it as you like. As long as you dont start with a blank page, there should be no problem. Moreover, if this contains patented algorithm, then i am sure the patent numbers should be mentioned in the documentation. I am pretty sure that not mentioning patents in distributed source code may weaken your position in front of a court.
Re: (Score:3)
IBM doesn't sell many physical widgets anymore*, but they still make OSS.
1) Realize your monopoly on low-end hardware has been disrupted.
2) Contribute to open source, to secure your stronghold on the enterprise.
3) OPEN A MASSIVE CONSULTING DIVISION.
4) Profit.
I always wanted to know what went in the "...".
* I'm sure people who've seen their profit margins on mainframes will tell me that's a load of BS, which it is.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. MS isn't some company building physical widgets who could benefit from a better set of IT tools, MS is a company whose primary purpose is to wall off a part of the IT universe and make it accessible only against payment. That's a pretty strong antimatter to the FSF's matter or vice versa. Suppose the free software ecosystem helps MS to make money, then what? That money is just going to go into expanding their walled garden. It's basically shooting ourselves in the foot.
My guess is that a significant number of enterprise customers have requested that Hyper-V play nice with Linux under threat of migration to VMware (or VMware customers who were considering migrating to Hyper-V but would not with the current level of Linux support)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat of a tangent, but why is compatibility on this type of thing built into the kernel level?
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:5, Informative)
You want to expose host's hardware to the guest with as few layers in between as possible. Traditional emulation is rather slow, so instead you set up a fast channel that exposes exactly what is needed in a most efficient way, and write drivers for the guest which use that to work with hardware.
I believe this is also true for scheduling - if host and guest cooperate (which necessarily requires special code running in guest's kernel), they can do much better at it.
Re:The number itself is entertaining but ... (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as the author of the only book about the internal working of Xen:
It's very important for scheduling. The guest OS typically lets processes run for 10ms windows (or until they hit some blocking code). In a virtualised environment, 10ms does not necessarily translate to 10ms of CPU time. A guest OS should run its processes for 10ms of time that the guest is scheduled, not for 10ms of elapsed time. If the guest is not aware of when it is scheduled and when it is idle, then it can not schedule its processes effectively. In some cases, you have latency-sensitive processes in the guest. The hypervisor and the guest can then cooperate so that the guest is not preempted while these processes are scheduled. Cooperation between host and guest schedulers is a very active research topic at the moment, because it can have a huge impact on overall throughput.
Re: (Score:3)
Listing this as a Microsoft announcement might be interesting except that most of the work done by the guy was probably when he was working for Novell. He only came to work for Microsoft in Feb. 2011. So not exactly a huge amount of time. Not to mention the modification are supposedly very small ones and are only done in the Microsoft module for their VM, that is still in the staging area from 2+ years ago.
Why we even want Microsoft's VM module I will never understand given Microsoft wants to see Linux rot
Re: (Score:3)
Why we even want Microsoft's VM module I will never understand given Microsoft wants to see Linux rot in hell and never be allowed to surface again. Microsoft as a company calls us a virus that infects everything ruining everything it touches, thieves and intellectual pirates. You should never accept anything from someone actively trying to stab you in the back. When the person is getting behind you it isn't for encouragement but rather so they get a better angle to stab you in the back.
Welcome to capitalism. Trade forces enemies to cooperate out of necessity (in exchanges which are mutually beneficial). The fact that the two trading parties may want to see each others' demise doesn't preempt the fact that they benefit in the short run from mutual exchange. Once they are deep enough in each others' pockets, past reasons for conflicts become obsolete.
K.... Y..... (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, did I say "insert"? D'oh!
changes != LoC (Score:3, Insightful)
In LWN.net's evaluation of the number of lines of code changed, Srinivasan and Microsoft are therefore nearer the bottom of the list. LWN.net found that Microsoft developers changed 11,564 lines of code (1.3 per cent) – compared to Intel's 163,232 (18.1 per cent).
Little changes are good, but simple count of changes isn't necessarily a good measure of work done. Lines of Code, while itself not a perfect measure, is better than simply Number of Commits.
Re: (Score:2)
Lines of code is a terrible metric too, but LWN has both anyway.
Re:changes != LoC (Score:4, Insightful)
Describing LoC as a "not perfect" metric is an astonishing understatement.
Re:changes != LoC (Score:5, Funny)
Describing LoC as a "not perfect" metric is an astonishing understatement.
I
disagree,
using
LoC
as
a
metric
has
made
my
measured
productivity
skyrocket!
Indent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:2)
Truly. I believe this goes back to the IBM Microsoft days when IBM paid Microsoft by the Kloc or per 1000 lines of code. Old habits die hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)
He has only been part of Microsoft since february 2011. Until then, he was part of Novel.
Re: (Score:2)
monkey taking a picture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still amusing to see Microsoft touching Linux at all while their monkey of a CEO slanders it and throws veiled threats at its userbase.
Re: (Score:3)
Even more interesting is that MS submitted code, then the most changes in the 3.0 kernel by an individual were to the MS submitted kernel code by a MS dev in order to bring MS's code up to the Linux standard so it could be included in the kernel...
It makes you wonder about code that MS doesn't have to let anyone else see i.e. their proprietary products.
(Actually, it make me wonder less -- This just confirms that they haven't really changed their coding habits since I last saw the mess that was the leak
Re: (Score:3)
It makes you wonder about code that MS doesn't have to let anyone else see i.e. their proprietary products.
It really doesn't. Bringing the code "up to the Linux" standard doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality. I'm sure that the quality was improved by the process, but that's normal any time intense scrutiny is applied to a piece of code of any size. Another round of intense scrutiny would improve it some more. I'm sure much of it was also a matter of complying with Linux coding style standards. Changing from one style to another can produce a large volume of trivial changes.
I also would not
Re: (Score:2)
It's still amusing to see Microsoft touching Linux at all while their monkey of a CEO slanders it and throws veiled threats at its userbase.
If they want to sell licenses in shops that run their VMs on Linux servers, then it's to their advantage the patch the KVM so Windows runs well in those environments. Of course it is tacit admission that those environments matter (or at least exist in sufficient quantities to merit the effort.) If asked about this directly they can just say something like, "Well of course Windows is a far superior platform for your servers, but some IT departments insist on using subpar technology and we want to provide our
Re: (Score:2)
In any case they seem to contribute a factor of 3 less than other major players.
Yes, let's use this as another opportunity to bash Microsoft. We don't get nearly enough of those around here.
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked MS was a software development firm, and did work with linux.
You'd think that this was common knowledge. Every company for which I've worked used a mix of Windows and Linux; of necessity efforts are made to make them work together.
Sometimes I wonder how many Slashdotters actually work in IT.
MS makes money off Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats pretty slick of him (Score:2)
He's like a well oiled machine.
Re: (Score:2)
He's like a well oiled machine.
I agree -- Wait... You do mean that he tries to get work done without leaving too nasty of a mess everywhere, and that no one really wants to touch the messes that do get left behind?
Re:Community Myth (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Linux development comes from corporations who could care less about GPL or open source.
Technically, if most of the development comes from corporations. They certainly could care less, because they seem to "care" at least a bit to develop for Linux. Perhaps, It doesn't mean what you want it to mean. But doesn't sound completely incoherent in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read what he said. They "could care less" - meaning they care to an extent already.
Now, that's probably not what the fool meant, but the fool wrote the opposite instead. Pity him.
Re:Community Myth ;-/ (Score:2, Insightful)
Irregardless, "could care less" is incorrect because it's logically flawed.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Irregardless ...
I hope that was a joke!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If I could care less about something, it means I care to some measure already.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, let's just throw away the basic meanings of some of the simplest words in our language. Everything should be taken to mean the opposite of what is actually said, because that makes perfect sense. Thanks for your time in so clearly and concisely explaining how apparently wrong I am in being correct. Hey, I guess you're right, things can mean the opposite of their stated denotations.
I've only heard Americans say "could care less", before, and it may come as a shock to many of them, but they aren't t
Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying one thing and meaning it's exact opposite is not an evolution of an "idiom" - it's just idiocy.
Unless you're telling me that in 300 years "4" might actually mean "27" or something along those lines?
Re: (Score:3)
I wish people would get over this myth that just because a lot of people say something and think they know what it means that it makes sense.
It doesn't. It's a sign that the speaker is stupid. Insisting that it's OK is a sign that the speaker is meta-stupid.
Re:Community Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's called illiteracy.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, i feel the same way about people who use the wrong "its".
Does that include the authors of the US Constitution? Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 2: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
to be fair, we're talking about the scribe and not the founding fathers themselves.
and so, as for Jacob Shallus [wikipedia.org]... well, he didn't have a backspace key but nevertheless, yes, i look back upon him disfavorably.
Re: (Score:2)
Darn, And I thought the Founding Fathers launched a preemptive strike against Nazism (grammar and otherwise).
Do you feel the same the same way about people who don't capitalize "I"?
Re: (Score:3)
if you're referring to my posts (and even if you're not), i intentionally adopted a mostly-uncapitalized style to reflect my perception that online discussion is a (novel) compromise between formal writing and spoken language. i still usually capitalize proper names only out of respect for others.
apart from this, you may also note that the capitalization of i is anomalous among nominative pronouns. afaik, there is no universally-accepted explanation for this, but i find the explanations put forth* to be eit
Re: (Score:3)
Than and then are completely different words.
Contrary to what many ill- and semi-literates seem to think, these are not homonyms. We spell them differently for a reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I have seen a great number of posts where 'then' has been substituted for 'than'. What really surprises me is the writer is quite clearly of above average intelligence...
There are also a lot of idiots doing it too.
Hopefully unrelated, recall that just a couple of days ago someone substituted "women" for "woman" in the title of a Slashdot article submission. As I read down the comments to see how quickly someone would call it, I saw plenty of other phonetic substitutions, spelling and grammar problems in the posts that follow. Yet, nobody seemed to take note (or I suppose mention) the error in the title.
I used to think "at least the members of Slashdot will continue to be
This... is stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps they couldn't care less (note the correct usage), what does that matter? So long as they contribute valid code, in compliance with licensing, that addresses a need, I don't care *who* contributes. Hell: Hans, from his jail cell, can contribute, for all of me. If it makes Linux better, and it's not some patent landmine, IJustDon'tGiveADamn.
As for user-driven innovation, yes, it is. For two reasons:
- Solo users still do contribute. Check the numbers.
- Solo users who manage to work for large companies does not mean they still don't adhere to the spirit.
So neener.
Re: (Score:2)
Hans can code with hibernation sickness?
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since if he screws up, it's his own life! That's motivation!
Re: (Score:3)
Does it matter if a contributor is an individual, an individual contributing on behalf of a company or company contributing as long as the code is of good quality, is offered in ways that agrees with the norms of the community and does not violate any license used by the community? Microsoft is contributing
Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Informative)
Linux is still "a community effort of users putting their minds together". There may have been a shift from the community made up mostly of individuals to corporations but it is still, a community. Does it matter if a contributor is an individual, an individual contributing on behalf of a company or company contributing as long as the code is of good quality, is offered in ways that agrees with the norms of the community and does not violate any license used by the community? Microsoft is contributing code because they are either using linux or they have people they are supporting who are using it hence they are part of the community effort. It doesnt matter how little any individual or company cares about the GPL, all it matters is that they conduct themselves in a way that does not violate it.
I will tell you what really makes me personally feel like I am participating in a community. For most Open Source software I have used, if I have a question or a suggestion or simply some feedback, I can usually communicate directly with the maintainer or lead developer of the project. They are accessible. They are fellow human beings, not corporate conglomerates. There are no layers of sales reps or receptionists or PR personnel. Sometimes I send an e-mail just to say "thank you" for the simple reason that they owe me absolutely nothing, yet I benefit from the work they have chosen to make freely available.
It would be like calling up Microsoft and speaking directly to Ballmer about Windows. No regular Microsoft customer is ever going to do that. That's the difference between a community and a conglomerate. That, and with most Linux distributions users help each other as much as (if not more than) organizations provide formal support.
Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Interesting)
And then I, as lead (and often only) developer for several FOSS projects, get an email with a question, suggestion or bug report to my personal email. When I reply with "please use the mailing list", people like you, who, to them, "community" means that the lead developer needs to answer their questions directly, complain, get upset, and sometimes get downright rude.
As a lead developer, I want a community to form. This means that I want to give all people in the community a chance to answer your question, not only myself personally.
Shachar
Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Contributions to Linux take many forms. Code-centric people only view contributions to the Linux kernel as contributions to Linux. Far more aware people, take contributions to Linux being amongst the following,
contributions to GNU (something you obviously need to look up),
contributions to Linux compatible hardware drivers,
contributions to Linux documentation,
contributions to Linux based graphical users interfaces,
contributions to Linux compatible applications,
contributions to graphics design including icons, appearance, fonts, screens savers, layouts,
contributions to marketing and promotion,
contributions to Linux protecting patents,
contributions to service and support,
contributions to the Linuc user community,
and of course contributions to Linux based distribution without which Linux would not exist as an operating system rather than just a kernel.
Seriously only a real asshat would take all those contributions and treat them as nothing either that or a microtroll. It amazes me that after all these years how people still fail to understand how a community developed product like Linux comes into being, how all contributions small and large are highly regarded (the value being in the sharing) and how contributions of individuals are valued (even those employed by M$, M$ did you create code, those people employed by M$ did).
From your selfish self centred viewpoint, it appears that I must apologise for using Linux whilst not being a good enough coder to contribute to the kernel. So "I am sorry", my coding sucks and my others contributions to Linux are not good enough to appease you. Of course to the rest of the Linux community I say thank you for all the contributions made no matter how great or small.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, as we all know, Apple doesn't release any free software... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Token bullshit so fanbois like you can keep on repeating it.
Hahah. I have this image in my head of Steve Jobs ordering a new division of developers to write OSS tools in order to stir up fanboyism on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't most of the open-source software that Apple uses derived from BSD? If you don't like Apple's use of it, complain to the BSD people to change their license (good luck with that).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft has a reason, it's called Hyper-V. Microsoft wants companies to use Hyper-V instead of VMWare and other virtualization platforms, and for that to work, even if Microsoft detests it, they need to support Linux as a virtualized guest.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft contributed stuff so their code would work.
Does it make "linux" better? No.
Does it allow THEIR code to work? Yes.
So interoperability is bad? Thats pretty fucking funny considering the number of fanboys such as yourself that shout that MS goes out of its way to break interoperability.
Would better interop not make Linux better? Seems rather illogical to say that Linux working better with Windows is a bad thing, since that is what you're saying I'm going to have to assume one of us is as retarded as Corky from Life Goes On, and its not me.
Re:Yes let's just get down and dirty in the code (Score:4, Insightful)
Interoperability for MS is a short term goal..
When IE was new and competing with netscape, they worked to make it interoperable with netscape...
Once netscape was gone, that flew out of the window and they tried to maintain lock-in.
Now that firefox and chrome have become popular, ie is now trying to interoperate again.
The same can be said of msoffice, when they faced serious competition they supported opening wordperfect files and had a relatively open rtf spec, once the competition was overcome they turn the screws of lockin again.
I predict the same will happen with hyper-v if they get the chance... If vmware, xen and kvm fall by the wayside then it wont be long before hyper-v only runs windows, the linux support will stagnate and new versions of hyper-v will come out which aren't compatible with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does. How Linux not doing stuff people want to do is good again? Should all the people that use the module fully change to Windows instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Should all the people that use the module fully change to Windows instead?
Is this a trick question? Surely you're aware that in order to run Microsoft Hyper-V, you must have Windows 2008 Server as the primary OS under the Hyper-V, and run a Windows desktop to be able to configure the hypervisor. So anyone using the module are already fully Windows; no change needed.
Contrast this with other commercial hypervisors like Xen and VMware, and you'll find that those are far less Windows-centric and lets users embrace both Linux and Windows, and switch either way if they so want.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with windows, it's drivers for running Linux better in Hyper-V.
Despite what you might think, Hyper-V != Windows.
Unless you're a VMware employee, I fail to see why you'd want to exclude Linux from working in Hyper-V.
You want windows? Go use windows.
You want linux? Use linux.
This I just don't understand. Are you saying that if you have an existing Windows server infrastructure, you should be prevented from using Linux servers when that's more suitable?
Getting approval for putting a Linux server as a guest on your existing virtualized infrastruc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Things that use ASP or .net, or silverlight, or the exhange protocol, or ...
Improve performance vs. having reverse engineered drivers that throw random errors.
Adding one extra virtual machine to an already existing solution is cheaper then hireing or training a guy for a different one and finding, locating and installing software for it. Hell of a lot easier to get it past management as well.
And ya, I work for M$ just because I can think of one instance where one of their specific products could be u
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make "linux" better? No.
The code gives people more choices. For those already using Hyper-V, it gives them a choice of using Linux on their VMs instead of Windows. For those already using Linux, it gives them a choice of using Hyper-V to host their VMs instead of KVM, VMware or other solutions. Are you saying that choice is not good?
Re:Yes let's just get down and dirty in the code (Score:4, Informative)
FOR THOSE USING WINDOWS, they can _also_ run Linux.
If they ran Linux they could host whatever they want. THAT'S why Microsoft did this. VMware Server is free, and it runs on Linux or Windows, and it hosts EVERYTHING.
That's cool. Hyper-V Server is also free, and does not require any OS to run (VMware also has a similar product - ESX). You don't need to run Windows.
Though I find it interesting that you object to running Linux in one proprietary piece of software (Hyper-V), but not the other (VMware). I'd understand your perspective it it was, at least, a matter of FOSS purity - but then you should, at least, argue for KVM or Xen.
This does not enhance Linux nor the experience of anyone who uses it.
It does enhance everyone's Linux experience if there are more Linux machines out there, don't you agree? If some previously Microsoft-only shop can now run e.g. LAMP instances on their Hyper-V servers, that's one more customer software and other companies would consider.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think maybe I was unclear... so I'll try and repair that.
Hyper-V does require an OS to run...hyper-v. It sucks because it's limited.
VMware's ESXi server also requires an OS... vmware ESXi. It happens this one is based on a linux kernel.
If people want to run Linux, and they choose to run it on Hyper-V their experience is limited. Microsoft has fixed some of their software's shortcomings... but Hyper-v is still limited.
I know you're trying to imply neither product needs an OS. This is not true. Both pr
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument seems to be boiling down to "VMware is just better, therefore no other choices are needed" - though I haven't seen you give any specific reasons why one is better than the other.
I wouldn't be surprised if VMware is a better choice in many cases - if nothing else, it's an older, more mature technology - but have you considered that your judgement on that matter may be subjective, and letting others decide which software, or combination of software, is better for them, is not such an offensive i
Re:Yes let's just get down and dirty in the code (Score:4, Informative)
1) Hyper-V has worked fine with Linux hosts for a long time, this is just a code cleanup and bug fix for existing Hyper-V specific drivers in the kernel.
2) VMWare also needs guest drivers to get Linux to run as it should. These are not part of the Linux kernel. VMware releases their drivers separably, but you still need them to make full use of the server.
Microsoft decided it would be easier for their users if they got their drivers included in the kernel. More work for Microsoft and the kernel maintainers, less work for the users.
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight:
Microsoft is BAD for releasing Linux drivers
VMware is GOOD for releasing Linux drivers
It's OK to run Windows from within Linux, but not the other way around?
I fail to see what your argument is.
Does improvements in Hyper-V drivers make Linux better? Yes
Does it benefit those who don't use Hyper-V? Yes, indirectly by increasing the user base, thus providing more incentive for others to release software for Linux.
Does it benefit existing Microsoft customers the most? Yes (but why is
Re:Yes let's just get down and dirty in the code (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, windows boots a lot faster inside of a vm running on linux than it does on the hative hardware (seriously, give it a try)...
If going the other way round, linux runs somewhat slower inside of a vm running on windows... The performance penalty when running in a vm on linux is much smaller.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, Windows seems to boot faster in a VM inside of Windows too. This is not so strange, the virtual hardware is probably a lot easier to detect and find drivers for than the full machine. I'm pretty sure that most programs run (slightly) slower after boot.
Re: (Score:3)
He's got it right...
Except for the Google part. They are going to sell your testicles to the CIA for nothing, while making it look like giving you a free service.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the Google part. They are going to sell your testicles to the CIA for nothing, while making it look like giving you a free service.
That's still in closed beta - so I'd appreciate it if you could send me an invite.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying the people who review kernel patches are so shitty they couldn't spot any of the things you're referring too?
You do realize you're insulting your own team more than the other team right, you're just too stupid to realize ... oh ... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, such a clever and original burn.
Or perhaps submarine patent issues? (Score:2)
361 new buffer overflow possibilities, regressions and invalid assumptions.
Or perhaps submarine patent issues?
Re: (Score:2)
The contribution seems limited to one module, whose inclusion is of value to Microsoft. If they tried to pull such a stunt, the kernel developers could just drop the module.
Re: (Score:2)
You should really wait for more comments before pronouncing summary judgement over /. audience. First posts are more often than not emotionally driven, and there is little rational substance there, hence they tend toward groupthink. That, and mods didn't have a good pass yet - once they do, most early AC comments end up at -1, the more interesting stuff bubbles up, and then you see some insightful discussion in follow-up posts.
my preference is FreeBSD, and never once have I bitched about an MS contributed patch.
That's interesting - there was some code contributed to FreeBSD by Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously that ignorant or trying to be funny?
I'm genuinely curious; I guess it would fall under "ignorant" then.
(check my /. bio, by the way)
Would you like specific contributions to FreeBSD kernel/userland, or is the fact that they released the CLR (see: rotor) for FreeBSD enough?
I know very well about Rotor, though it hasn't been updated for ages (last release was in 2006), and even that version was XP-only - it was only the first one which ran on FreeBSD. It was mainly meant as a research project first and foremost - code to study to know how ECMA CLI spec can be efficiently implemented. That's why its license was "shared source", not FOSS, meaning no derivative works. As Mono matured,
Re: (Score:3)
I should note, that almost all of these posts so far are 1million UIDs or AC, so it probably really is teenage angst, but holy shit no wonder no one commercially supports Linux, you guys are just ungrateful fucks.
you must be new here
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they don't attempt to use their involvement with Linux to pull any sort of "oh, some of the code that was contributed was misappropriated from us, therefore we own X of Linux... no, we can't tell you which parts" at some point in the future, I don't really have a problem with MS contributing to my OS of choice.
The thing is though... they're Microsoft... and I wouldn't put it past them to try something like that someday. I can certainly hope that they don't... but it still gives one reason to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like MS as much as the next guy
No, you don't.
, but [...]
and then you go on proving it.
the retarded little world of idiotic artificial restrictions placed on kernel code just to appease a bunch of GPL zealots
Really, now. Since when was having a rigid API and coding standards a bad thing? Do you want to go back to the "anything goes" days and bad drivers causing panics or worse (undetected errors)? I am quite happy that Linux has tightened up the ship, and tossed out lots of bad code. There's more work to be done there, but it's well underway and things are better for it!
make it easier for you little puds to run Linux under the MS hypervisor
Sorry, but us "ignorant anti-microsoft" guys don't run MS Hyper-V. Why would we, when there ar
Re:A Purge Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
The code from ANYONE at Microsoft is venom ... and must be dead ... and must be deleated.
Neither Microsoft nor Apple can be trusted! They are both EVIL. KILL their CODE! ... Let their
bodies BURN.
A real good day will be when the bodies of Microsoft and Apple employees are burning in the streets.
-- //
Just a suggestion... cut back on the caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the people who don't respond in horror but just plain damn think the OP wasn't funny?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Q. Will Microsoft continue to support Linux operating systems with Hyper-V?
A. Yes, Microsoft provides integration components and technical support for customers running select Linux distributions as guest operating systems within Hyper-V. Please check the Supported Guest Operating Systems page for more information and updates.
It definitly looks like the hyper-v drivers are officially supported by Microsoft.
Its obviously a contribution made for selfish reasons (Linux support is essential if you want your h