Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro 282
jbernardo writes: Microsoft has built a Linux distro, and is using it for their Azure data centers. From their blog post: "It is a cross-platform modular operating system for data center networking built on Linux." Apparently, the existing SDN (Software Defined Network) implementations didn't fit Microsoft's plans for the ACS (Azure Cloud Switch), so they decided to roll their own infrastructure. No explanation why they settled on Linux, though — could it be that there is no Windows variant that would fit the bill? In other news, Lucifer has been heard complaining of the sudden cold.
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything else is, by definition, off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot (Score:2)
That means I'm responding to your thread topic.
No shit? I thought that was already clear due to your command being attached to theirs.
The only use for subjects in comments are to deliver subtle or not so subtle out-of-band insults.
MS uses what works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS uses what works (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
I'm sure that given time and money, there could be a Windows variant that did the job. But that isn't MS's focus. Here in the Microsoft Dynamics consulting world, Azure is what is being pushed hard for all the latest enterprise systems (CRM, ERP). Microsoft makes it's money from Azure and everything that runs on top of that. This stuff is nothing to them.
So not publically not eating your own dog food (Score:5, Informative)
..is fine, right? When you're trying to sell Windows to the public as a one size fits all OS yet its apparently not good enough to run the network of their own Premier cloud service thats not a problem?
Give me a break, this has embarrassing U-turn written all over it.
Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food (Score:5, Informative)
Your comment would be correct 5 years ago.
Now, cloud services are the thing.
As an example, the premier ERP solution that Microsoft has, Dynamics AX, is currently totally tied to Windows. The next version, AX 7, changes the game completely. The rich client - the bit the user interacts with - is gone, replaced with a browser-agnostic UI (sporting a Windows 8 Start screen look-and-feel, but that's another story). The server and database components are now running on Azure. Windows has effectively vanished from the equation. And this the flagship ERP application.
For another example, look at Microsoft Office.
Microsoft is no longer the company that makes Windows and defends the Windows franchise; it's now services, services, services, and Windows with stand-alone Office etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment would be correct 5 years ago.
Now, cloud services are the thing.
As an example, the premier ERP solution that Microsoft has, Dynamics AX, is currently totally tied to Windows. The next version, AX 7, changes the game completely. The rich client - the bit the user interacts with - is gone, replaced with a browser-agnostic UI (sporting a Windows 8 Start screen look-and-feel, but that's another story). The server and database components are now running on Azure. Windows has effectively vanished from the equation. And this the flagship ERP application.
For another example, look at Microsoft Office.
Microsoft is no longer the company that makes Windows and defends the Windows franchise; it's now services, services, services, and Windows with stand-alone Office etc.
As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).
Re: (Score:2)
As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).
You think? I always saw NAV as the more fun EFP solution, in terms of ways to get data in and out of the system. Some of the NAV concepts, like publishing a table or a class as an instant WebServices endpoint, would have to almost vanish in an Azure-ized version. Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?
Re: (Score:2)
As an Dynamics NAV Developer, this is a bit frightening to me.Because MS has already started to "Azure-ify" NAV, and I believe that what is happening to AX will trickle-down to NAV (even though they are entirely separate products).
You think? I always saw NAV as the more fun EFP solution, in terms of ways to get data in and out of the system. Some of the NAV concepts, like publishing a table or a class as an instant WebServices endpoint, would have to almost vanish in an Azure-ized version. Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?
I've never messed around in AX; so I'll take your word that NAV is "more fun". But, MS is slowly but surely pounding the "fun" out of NAV, that's for sure!
Once you take all the fun bit out of NAV, is there really any point to the product?
Well, for one, it keeps me fed... ;-)
Re: So not publically not eating your own dog food (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like that supermodel you take out to dinner. Who just nibbles on a salad and pushes the steak and lobster away. And then goes home and wolfs down a few pints of Haagen Dazs.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I suppose they should port windows OS onto CISCO routers to maintain 'purity'.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you get this idea? Windows has always catered to the majority. They didn't stay you could launch a space shuttle with their OS. Use the right tools for the right job. In this case Linux was that tool to break the gap.
You should be happy MS used Linux for something within their critical structure. After all, Linux is the perfect OS to solve problems that require infinite flexibility. Linux is also amazing when packaged for specific hardware. Raspberry Pi, mobile phones... That's where Linux has shi
Re:So not publically not eating your own dog food (Score:4, Interesting)
I have worked at Microsoft, and they are all about eating their own dog food. Everyone at Microsoft uses Microsoft products for everything.
And, let me remind you of the fiasco where Microsoft bought Hotmail and switched its servers from UNIX (FreeBSD on front-end servers and some Solaris database servers) to Windows. They had to throw more hardware at the operation and still had problems, but they did it, and they knew going in [theregister.co.uk] that they would have more problems with Windows.
But now we are talking about Azure. Microsoft is seriously going for market share in cloud hosting, and most of the customers they are trying to win over are already running their stuff on Linux. So it's not really that embarrassing for Azure to run on Linux... I attended the Linuxfest Northwest conference this year, and Microsoft Azure had a booth in the vendor room where they had signs saying "Microsoft <heart> Linux".
Also, Microsoft is going after the Docker market. They are whipping together something like Docker for running Windows server apps in the cloud, but meanwhile they are all in on supporting Linux Docker apps for Azure. They have ported the Docker admin tools to run on a Windows machine, so that people can control Docker from a Windows machine (while the Docker is still running on Linux, you understand).
Give me a break, this has embarrassing U-turn written all over it.
I disagree about the "embarrassing" part. Microsoft has, in the past, acted like it could control the industry. One reason it acted that way was that it used to succeed more often than not in actually controlling the industry. But it's far too late for Microsoft to kill Linux; they are going to have to co-exist with Linux forever now, and it's not embarrassing for them to act like it.
I remember, about seven years ago, seeing a video at Microsoft that showed a skinny kid on a skateboard as a visual metaphor for Linux. I was amused... did they really think they could convince IT guys to choose Windows over Linux just by sneering at Linux in a marketing video? The Microsoft that made that video could never make its own distro.
In recent years, Microsoft has not shown much ability to adapt. Look at how horrible their strategy was with portable music players and then with mobile devices. But now, the Azure guys are just doing whatever makes the most sense for them, and it is politically possible at Microsoft? That's actually a good omen for Microsoft's future; at least they are not denying reality as much as they used to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That reminds me of the story Frank Soltis ("father" of the AS400) told about one of IBM's customers. They ran AS400s for their distribution network. Then they decided to switch to Windows servers - and after 12 months or so, switched back to AS400s, because Windows just couldn't cut it.
The customer was Microsoft.
https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~ibc... [senecac.on.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
U-turn, perhaps. Embarrassing? More like long overdue. Good engineering is about using the best fit for the task at hand, not about shoving balls into square holes for the sake of politics.
Let me show you something. This [technet.com] is a Microsoft product that runs on Linux (IPython/Jupyter notebooks specifically, that is). It's not even a customized distro, just plain Ubuntu running in Docker containers. And it's not something that runs under the hood, because in notebooks you can run shell commands and access the fil
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think a windows variant could do the job. There are so many mature packages for linux. Apt get or whatever keeps them up to date and patched without
1) Porting something or
2) Writing from scratch
And that functionality would not be in the server, it would be an installable package. Because if Windows needed it, they would build it.
They aren't marketing windows for cloud providers, they are hosting Azure. So why add to windows if your customers don't need it? So they can build a competing cloud?
Given t
Re:MS uses what works (Score:5, Funny)
No reason not to use Linux.
Except that its un-American, and causes cancer...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, doesn't this mean that they now have to sue themselves for the MS patents they are infringing by using Linux? I wonder if they have given themselves an NDA to find out what those infringements are finally?
Re:MS uses what works (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of which, I wonder how long it will take for Linux to 'metastasize' within the organization?
First, it fulfills a couple of roles here and there in MSFT. Next, they have to make their own in-house distro. Next, they discover that it's kind of useful for a few internal roles within a few internal departments (esp. budget-starved ones). Next...?
Slowly, surely... ?
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, I wonder how long it will take for Linux to 'metastasize' within the organization?
First, it fulfills a couple of roles here and there in MSFT. Next, they have to make their own in-house distro. Next, they discover that it's kind of useful for a few internal roles within a few internal departments (esp. budget-starved ones). Next...?
Slowly, surely... ?
They use OS X, too, in a few places (even outside of the Mac Business Unit). Just like Apple runs Windows on some production and test equipment, as well as some other places, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They use OS X, too, in a few places
Microsoft is the #1 vendor of OSX software, which makes Microsoft the #1 vendor of BSD software.
Re:MS uses what works (Score:5, Informative)
The big difference is that the TCP/IP stack used a BSD license but Linux has a GPL license.
You can use BSD code, add a license notice (on original BSD license) and be done.
If MS is offering the Linux distro to it's users, then it must make available it's Linux distro's code too.
Re: (Score:2)
What else would you expose to the internet? Most firewalls and routers these days run linux too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, someone will distribute it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: MS uses what works (Score:3)
It is likely that the need/want the option of running on non-x86 hardware, like IBM mainframes.
If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullcrap. I've built a few email servers and firewall boxes running Slackware. A few even have nine nines uptime. They are rock solid and damn near impenetrable. Your only argument is that they may not be great for cloud services and even that is debatable. Do you like the taste of foot?
Re: (Score:2)
A vanilla Linux kernel with some packages compiled and installed could be used for very serious things...
The vanilla kernel either fails badly or has many missing features on server systems. Mine will only boot up and run correctly with an enterprise linux like RHEL or CentOS or SLES. With a vanilla kernel just about nothing works right. There are super-critical patches for particular models of RAID controllers, NUMA, etc. that are not in the vanilla kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all serious things are run on servers using RAID and NUMA. In order to discount Slackware from use on any serious thing, you have to disprove it for all serious things, not just one subset.
Re: If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. (Score:4, Informative)
The Slackware FAQ [slackware.com] still talks about SoundBlaster 16 and old CD-ROM drives. It gives a strong impression that this is not a distro for modern times.
Well evidently, since you haven't even bothered to look at it beyond the home page, you clearly haven't been pressured enough into bothering to do any real research. Slackware is literally just a vanilla Linux kernel and some prebuilt packages of popular programs - that's all it is. No custom this, no custom that, no preset defaults. If the plain Linux kernel isn't stable, reliable, trustworthy and has a large community, then I don't know why you'd think Debian would have that.
Of course, you're actually right in some ways. While it's designed to be simple to modify for what you wish it to be, it really excels at being a personal OS for a single user, one who can mold it into whatever they want. In particular though, it's not suitable for enterprise use, or at least not without some serious custom modding and testing. The packages, while stable, are fairly new, the prebuilt package repository is fairly small (and the unofficial Slackbuilds isn't stable at all), and the whole package managment system in general doesn't really scale well. The difference is, I actually used it heavily a couple years back, before I switched my peronal workstation to FreeBSD, and I found its weak points (and strong ones) through heavy daily interaction. If you're willing to dismiss it simply because of what it looks like alone, you're clearly not the target audience. So go back to Debian, apt-get purge that Systemd, and put back on your beloved sysvinit. Go ahead, it'll be the same as before, it won't have been cursed by thy evil foe then.
But if you can't be bothered to do any sort of serious study whatsoever, then please quit whining like a three year old, and don't bite off someone's head when they gave you a well-intentioned and helpful reccommendation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it's plausible (Score:3)
I'm not joking around here. If Microsoft put out a Linux distro that didn't use systemd, with some guarantee that it never would, I'd very much consider using it. It sounds absolutely crazy, but things have gotten so fucked up in the Linux ecosystem lately that the thought of Microsoft putting out the best Linux distro has actually become plausible.
Of course it's plausible. It's radically different than how most MSFT products are designed, but they still have a huge amount of money and a lot of great engineers. If they decided to put out the best linux distro in the world, they would have a good shot.
Re:If it doesn't use systemd, I'd like to use it. (Score:5, Funny)
We will never use use systemd. We have replaced it by svhost.exe (Microsoft insider).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not crazy... if they started a business arm with a distro and support like RH it would probably be quite profitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially if they could get Office/Outlook/etc. ported to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I think in the past they might have burned 1B building a "core Windows" version for networking. I think recently MS has realized that there is no point spending a lot of money to roll your own, or even keep secret tech you make that you have no intention in selling. Ex: ASP, .Net, Entity Framework etc all going open source: none of them were things you were paying for anyways so why not open it up? You still will likely use windows and VS if you like the tech so they might as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.
Well yeah, except for that whole we-sell-server-OS-solutions, in a eat-your-own-damn-dog-food kinda way...
Re:MS uses what works (Score:4, Insightful)
No reason, other than Microsoft's own policy of 'Eating Its own dog food'.
This policy was in place in order to force Microsoft to develop its own solutions from within its own software, in order to force their own software to become continually better and better.
Of course Microsoft doesn't build their own chairs and desks for their offices, so where do you draw the line between the dog food policy and using other's products for solutions instead of their own? Office furniture is a no-brainer, Microsoft has no dog food to eat. Enterprise level RDBMS data bases would be another, as SQL Server is not really in the same class as Oracle or DB2. Linux, however is different. Linux is a general use OS for Intel (and other) based computers. Windows is a general use OS for Intel based computers. This is a pretty significant cross over. Anything Linux can do, Windows should be able to do. Not improving Windows to be able to match or beat Linux at something is definitely choosing to eat someone else's dog food.
It may show that Microsoft is shedding some of their traditional 'rules' in order to transform the company and create a new Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux may run on x86, but it also runs on MIPS, PPC, ARM etc which Windows generally does not and most networking equipment does not use x86 cpus.
It's more likely that MS have realised there is no long term future in selling software, and that cloud hosting is the future due to being an ongoing revenue stream... And that's a market where linux has a heavy presence.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually...we do have Windows on ARM, as recently as Windows 10 on the RPi. And we used to have Windows on MIPS and PPC - how do we know that Microsoft doesn't still have an internal port? Or that Apple doesn't still have a PPC build of OS X?
Re: (Score:2)
Rumors of Mac OS X on ARM-based processors has been floating around for several years.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/26/rumor-apple-once-again-said-to-be-strongly-considering-arm-based-macs [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All your servers are belong to us.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in-house and they aren't trying to sell it. No reason not to use Linux.
Then why did they destroy Danger Labs and the Side-Kick trying to migrate everything to their own servers?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They used to run microsoft.com on Apache/FreeBSD. Now they (fake?) it running on IIS.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong choice (Score:5, Informative)
This was just a bad choice. If they wanted a proper software defined network, they'd have selected FreeBSD since it has the fastest, most compact networking stack in the world and its well known/accepted fact by anyone who does high-end networking, hence why Microsoft ALREADY has a fuck ton of FreeBSD installs on their core network labeled ... Juniper Networks ... or F5 ... or any of the other ones.
Someone deserves to get fired for this. Not because they picked Linux, but because Linux simply wasn't the right choice in any way shape or form as every other major company doing networking has illustrated.
FreeBSD networking good in general. For specific (Score:3)
FreeBSD is a good choice for networking appliances in general. For their specific use of software defined networking, given the specific constraints they are working under, and their precise goals ... Well, there are people who actually understand a situation, and there are random blowhards on Slashdot who onow much better what should be done, despite not knowing anything about the situation.
Re:Wrong choice (Score:4, Informative)
Not so fast - after all, guess what Cisco chained into their Nexus line of switches? (NX-OS is not using a FBSD kernel, after all.)
It's not that FBSD is failed or failing, but because Linux has a much bigger mindshare nowadays, which means you can more easily get the real esoteric and custom bits for your needs, especially without having to write it all yourself.
Yes, I know FBSD has linux compatibility [freebsd.org] and stuff, but that's not the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux compatibility is irrelevant to this discussion.
compatibility with customer skills is always relevant to the discussion of things to be sold
Re:Wrong choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong choice (Score:4, Insightful)
I suggest you look up how SDN switches and Juniper routers work. In neither case is the commodity OS used in the forwarding path; it is just a control-plane OS, and the performance of the control-plane OS's network stack has no bearing on traffic performance. Whether FreeBSD's network stack is "better" than Linux's is debatable (I thought all the BSD-heads "knew" that OpenBSD's network stack was the best, not FreeBSD), but it has no relevance here.
Re: Wrong choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why is Linux used to power rendering clusters and supercomputers, and not FreeBSD?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. What makes Linux nice is the ton of supported hardware. For an excellent Network Stack, go FreeBSD. Linux is just acceptable in that field.
Re: Wrong choice (Score:4, Informative)
Clever (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Clever (Score:2)
This proves Linux sucks (Score:5, Funny)
The Total Cost of Ownership is so high, that only a company as rich as Microsoft can use it for their own business.
Re: (Score:2)
Short term, you are certainly right. If you still want to have a business in 5 or 10 years and hiring the cheapest, dumbest IT staff available does not cut it, not so much.
Re: This proves Linux sucks (Score:2)
Not MS's first Linux (Score:4, Funny)
This is not the first Linux released by Microsoft.
The first one was released in 2003. http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]
It was released under GPL (Gates Private License).
So where can I download MS-Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't find it on torrent sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you blame them? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, Linux is just full of their patented inventions - hell, they practically wrote the whole thing! They should use it, and proudly!
Blue Screen of Death (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: You see it far to rarely to make the effort worthwhile. With Windows, it was frequently enough before Win7 to deserve special consideration. In fact, the only kernel panics I have had on Linux in the last 10 years where when I told the kernel a wrong amount of memory (instead of letting it detect it) and a wrong root device.
Re: (Score:2)
Professional is not "Oh no, we had an issue :(" in my book.
In my book it is much more professional than failing in random ways. Windows writes a kernel dump along the frown anyway, so it's no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd (Score:5, Funny)
Cool. Now they will bundle Clippy into Systemd.
Re:Systemd (Score:4, Funny)
No, that's not Clippy, that's Grubby.
The bill? (Score:2)
...no Windows variant that would fit the bill?
The Bill? Oh, THAT Bill, I got it. Stupid pun.
How comes nobody already talked about MSLinux ? (Score:2)
And in other news... (Score:2)
Dante's Inferno has been renamed Dante's Beer Cooler.
Ha ha, I love it (Score:2)
Microsoft Has Built a Linux Distro
Ha ha, I love April 1st on slashdot, what with all the crazy, made-up stories and stuff.
Spyvertising business model (Score:2)
MS is in the process of switching from a "software as product" to "customer as product" or "spyvertising" business model.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who has read Satya Nadella's speeches about the direction in which he wants to take the company.
And in still other news... (Score:2)
... the Pope announces that from now on all religious observances in monasteries will be adopted from those of the Unitarian Universalist sort-of-religion. "Hey, it's completely in-house -- our monks will get a lot more work and meditation in not having to waste so much time chanting and going to mass all of the time," he is quoted as saying. "In a few cases it is just plain easier to use the rituals of other religions where using our own would involve a major expenditure or loss of efficiency."
Meantime,
Re:Satan (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Satan (Score:5, Funny)
Linux? Pah! There's a reason why Microsoft owns WindowsPowersHell.org [windowspowershell.org].
Re: A gnu! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They bought Hotmail, rather than developing it from the ground up, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they needed to do to avoid a complete rewrite, at least for a while.
Re:Not the first time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft had XENIX back in the late '80s and early '90s. And, it was available to anyone. I supported many customers on it with our software and really enjoyed working with it. PC people couldn't believe that you could run a 386 or 486 and support multiple users at the same time with cheap dump terminals. And as I type this from a Linux-based Chromebook, I couldn't be happier that *NIX is not only eating Microsoft's lunch, but it is also being served for lunch at Microsoft.
We all saw this coming. And we know where it is all going...
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with XENIX back in the 90s when I was in the military. It was strange seeing Microsoft's name in the copyright, but not a big deal. As long as it worked, noone cared what company made that particular version.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had the most popular version of UNIX on the market once. Xenix ran on a variety of platforms, even the Apple Lisa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Xenix was licenced from the then SCO to Microsoft :) It was therefore a rebadged SCO Unix it wasn't made by MS.
SCO's C compiler was Microsoft C++, not the Unix one. It's not exactly "rebadging" when you rip out the C compiler and modify all the source code to work with the new compiler.
Re:Not the first time... (Score:4, Informative)
Just No. Microsoft licensed Unix v7 from AT&T in 1978 and announced in 1980 that they would make it available for 16 bit micros. Microsoft's license did not allow it to use the UNIX name, so they came up with Xenix as a name. Microsoft did not choose to sell it directly to end users. They licensed it to OEMs IBM, Intel, Tandy, Altos, SCO, and Siemens.
SCO was originally farting around with their own port of v7, Dynix. In 1982 they made a deal with Microsoft to jointly develop Xenix.
Re: (Score:2)
He only said that because he was being oppressed by the British.
I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies. So the Germans were in charge of India when Gandhi tried to press for independence. It didn't go so well for him or his followers.
Re: (Score:2)
I read a short story where Germany won World War I, and got all of Britain's colonies.
You can prove anything you want to, if you start with a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...
I got brain cancer from just reading your post, so I concur. The mental hospitals would be bursting at the seams with IT people, all of whom would be gibbering madly and frothing at the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Make Office 2016 work on Linux distros, then release Windows 11 built on a Linux kernel. So many heads would explode...
I got brain cancer from just reading your post, so I concur. The mental hospitals would be bursting at the seams with IT people, all of whom would be gibbering madly and frothing at the mouth.
Why? All this microsoft stuff is already running on OSX. Porting from BSD to linux should not be a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Little quote currently at the bottom of the Slashdot page: "Tell the truth and run."
Hehehehe, nice!
Re: (Score:2)
Now that would be pretty fascinating: MS going for quality instead of hype.