Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Microsoft Linux

OpenLogic Backs Linux On Windows Azure With SLA 46

Posted by samzenpus
from the odd-couple dept.
MikeatWired writes "OpenLogic announced on Thursday that it will provide CentOS Linux — and service-level agreement (SLA) support — through Microsoft's new Windows Azure gallery. Yesterday, Microsoft announced support for Linux instances on its cloud service, among other cloud news, in what Wired Enterprise's Cade Metz dubbed an Amazonian facelift. OpenLogic's Steven Grandchamp writes in a blog post that for 'enterprise developers and IT folks who are multi-source and multi-platform, today's announcement is good news. The Windows and Linux worlds take one step towards each other.' However, Grandchamp notes that despite Microsoft 'maturing its views on open source' with 'significant work' with Node.js, Hadoop, and Samba, the open source community 'will meet [Linux on Azure] with overall wariness and skepticism.' 'Some will view this with hope and a positive step; others will continue to be cynical,' he writes. 'For me, it's part of a larger overall process that continues to signal open source coming of age. What major vendor doesn't have an open source story now? It's such an ingrained part of development, from legacy to mobile to cloud, that we can't live without and we are figuring out how to love living with it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenLogic Backs Linux On Windows Azure With SLA

Comments Filter:
  • Anyone know what Azure is based on? Something tells me its not the MS Windows Kernel, and probably more BSD....
  • What an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 07, 2012 @05:49PM (#40250909)

    Open source isn't just now coming of age, and we're not figuring out how to love "living with it". Open source came of age in the 90's, and we've been loving it, not merely living with it ever sense. "We" being people that actually get it. It's people like yourself and Microsoft who are finally understanding its power and coming to a new age in your own evolution, one that can acknowledge how much better this model is than your own. It's sink or swim time for you guys at this point: embrace open source or continue dying a slow death.

    • Re:What an idiot (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sir_Sri (199544) on Thursday June 07, 2012 @06:01PM (#40250993)

      Except this really has nothing to do with open source. MS offers a computing cloud, and they offer various options on the computing cloud because they want to make money. Some of those things happen to be open source.

      MS open sourcing one of their major product lines would be open source news. This is 'cloud provider has wide variety of services'. It's not going to make open source OS's mainstream on the desktop, and there's a wide array of open source software for windows. Azure is (for the moment) an enterprise product, for enterprise users, and you're right, they've been readily using open source for some things since the 90's.

      Microsoft never got much past 50% of the server market, and I think they're down around 40% these days, depending on how you count it. Considering azure is basically a giant platform service they couldn't aim to be a serious single solutions provider business and only host windows.

      • Except this really has nothing to do with open source. MS offers a computing cloud, and they offer various options on the computing cloud because they want to make money.

        Are you kidding? MS never chooses to simply "make money" on a market. Every market they enter they are only interested in supporting their other monopolies. If that makes them lose money on that maket, well, life is tough...

        The current anouncement could very well be an exception, and a huge one. Of course, it could also be a trap.

    • No fucking kidding? How long has Linux been used in commercial operations? How long has it been put on embedded and dedicated platforms? Hell, how long has friggin' BSD and Emacs been around? Fuck, you'd think Open Source had been invented yesterday.

  • by hackus (159037) on Thursday June 07, 2012 @06:06PM (#40251037) Homepage

    Let me get this straight.

    You're going to take and scale, a per license based hypervisor, that is admitted to be fairly immature, commercial product with poor scaling abilities and couple it with LINUX GPL licensed based guests which, you can throw away all of the benefits of open engineering, all of the GPL based engineering which is far superior to anything corporation has ever concieved, on a scale that no corporation can match which is the LINUX open source GPL kernel. ...running the largest computing machines ever concieved of by man so far..._ALL_ of them run LINUX.

    THEY DO NOT RUN WINDOWS.

    Is there something I am missing here?

    Next thing you are going to tell me is that central banking histroically has been a major win for all countries that ever adopted it resulting in extremly stable currencies and fair trade for all. ;-)

    Didn't Einstein say that the definition of insanity is trying something over and over and over again, that has a logical single outcome, yet somehow something different is expected?

    So why would we try to scale commercial software when it doesn't work in the private sector, on a cloud and simply just use LINUX?

    I personal response is that obviously, these commercial Azure cloud companies must be INSANE.

    -Hack

    PS: Central Banking is insane too, always destroys civilizations but they keep doing it saying..."Oh, but _THIS_ _TIME_ it will be different."

    • Is there something I am missing here?

      Pricing?

    • As much as I agree with you...could you please stop YELLING the name...it's Linux...it's a name, not an acronym...thank you.
    • by dhavleak (912889)
      So this is the stuff that passes for 'insight' these days?

      and couple it with LINUX GPL licensed based guests which, you can throw away all of the benefits of open engineering

      How does the hypervisor choice affect the fact that your guest is GPL licensed? Are you supposed to stop looking at the source once you run a Linux VM on hyperv?

      all of the GPL based engineering which is far superior to anything corporation has ever concieved, on a scale that no corporation can match which is the LINUX open source GPL kernel

      Dogma. Recommend critical thinking instead.

      THEY DO NOT RUN WINDOWS. Is there something I am missing here?

      As others mentioned -- price. But its in fact an orthogonal topic. Linux's FOSS roots make it adaptable, and it's been adapted for cluster computing of the supercomputing / number-crunching variety. That type of scalability is different than th

      • ..Windows is in all other aspects RetardWare. Slow networking, Buggy SMB (still with Win7), in-transparent config (that registry crap-pile), MFC, slow to launch/stop processes, lots of security issues.
        It is only advocated by people who are too lazy to learn Unix.
  • Amazon Web Services has been around for a while now.. they have a pretty robust line of tools ...If this move by microsoft.. and others.. to try and get more opensourcey stuff on the azure cloud is a success.. when should people start looking to move stuff to the azure cloud ?

    what is the tipping point ? is there one?

    from my point of view it seems like that is a long way off..

  • Just reading wikipedia's description: " CentOS exists to provide a free enterprise class computing platform and strives to maintain 100% binary compatibility with its upstream source, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)." - Why not just use Red Hat directly?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nixoloco (675549)

      Just reading wikipedia's description: " CentOS exists to provide a free enterprise class computing platform and strives to maintain 100% binary compatibility with its upstream source, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)." - Why not just use Red Hat directly?

      Because that way they don't have to pay Red Hat anything.

      • by SpaFF (18764)

        Because that way they don't have to pay Red Hat anything.

        I think they are going to find it tough to keep Enterprise-level SLAs using Centos vice Red Hat. Anytime there is a major security vulnerability, rather than waiting on Red Hat to release an Erratum, they are going to have to wait on Red Hat to release AND then wait on the CentOS folks (who have no financial motivation to do things with any urgency) to take what Red Hat released and rebuild it for CentOS.

        • by Xtifr (1323)

          I think they are going to find it tough to keep Enterprise-level SLAs using Centos vice Red Hat.

          They're already running on a Windows hypervisor. It's not like switching from RHEL to CentOS is going to affect their SLAs more than that will! :)

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...