Red Hat and Microsoft Partner On Azure (redhat.com) 130
An anonymous reader writes: Satya Nadella has made some interesting reforms to Microsoft. Today, Red Hat and Microsoft announced that they will partner to deliver Red Hat's product suite in Azure. Red Hat will also support .NET core in RHEL. Additionally, Red Hat's CloudForms product will now work with Hyper-V/Azure, RHEV, VMware, and AWS. Microsoft has certainly come a long way from the Halloween Memos. Here are Red Hat's blog post and Microsoft's blog post about the announcement
M$ and Redhat? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You used a dollar sign instead of an 'S'!
I like the cut of your job, funnyman!
I believe that would be "cut of your jib" not job.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the cut of your job, funnyman!
I believe that would be "cut of your jib" not job.
It's called a "typo". On a keyboard, the I is right next to the O. Have a nice day, please come again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: M$ and Redhat? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: M$ and Redhat? (Score:4, Funny)
\.
Backslash dot? What is this? Some sort of windows forum?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It can also stand for Multiple Sclerosis.
So given that there's several other things which "MS" stands for already, I think it's perfectly reasonable to relegate Microsoft to the "M$" abbreviation, in order to reduce confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like anyone would get them confused. One wears you down gradually and destroys your physical faculties until instead of fearing death you're longing for it. The other is an incurable disease of the nervous system.
Re: (Score:2)
The way things are going for Microsoft, 2-3 years Red Hat might own Microsoft.
In your face, Yakov!
Re:M$ and Redhat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Systemd wants to be rundll32.exe, so in a way it makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A) There has been hypervisor cooperation on both sides for ages so that each other's products ran on each other. This makes sense since 1) it avoids accusations of monopoly behavior 2) it create's a duopoly locking out other smaller competitors.
B) Remember Microsoft not so long ago ended up contributing to Linux.
C) If you want to Embrace, Extend Exterminate then you first have to Embrace. The article is wrong. This is a move straight out of the Halloween.
Hell will freeze over when Microsoft starts activ
Re: M$ and Redhat? (Score:2)
Like the Linux kernel to which they are big contributors? You can already run Ubuntu and Centos Linux on Azure. This is just another option.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, and Red Hat was the last, why? Probably because Microsoft had hoped that by supporting Red Hat's competitors, it could put a dent in RH's profitability. Since Ubuntu and Centos don't have viable server business models, supporting them doesn't threaten Microsoft. Of course, if there were more of a market for Windows cloud solutions, Microsoft probably never would've supported Linux on their cloud at all. And I'm guessing that the same goes for Red Hat - there wasn't enough demand for Ubuntu and Ce
Re: (Score:1)
Likewise, i believe Microsoft's Linux kernel contributions are all in support of getting Linux to work as an Azure VM. I guess that counts as 'contributions', though it's pretty self-serving.
Almost all contributions to open source are self-serving, people contribute fixes because they need them fixed and add features that they need. Most kernel devs are paid to do their work, you think the people paying them aren't doing it because they need the features?
I suppose you could say that's what the GPL a
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say there was anything wrong about self-serving kernel contributions - just that it's misleading to portray them as Linux-friendly, or as improvements to Linux per se.
The OEM's are paying because it's cheaper to pay than to fight. That says nothing about the quality of the patents - just that Microsoft is being smart about extracting money from those patents. Just because it's cheap enough that the OEM's are willing to pay it rather than fight, that doesn't mean it's not blackmail. And the reaso
Re: (Score:2)
As of four days ago, they went to /dev/null.
Redhat has wanted to be the Microsoft of Linux (Score:2)
since before their IPO. This isn't that surprising at all other than that they survived this long and are now wanting to work together with said Evil.
Re: (Score:1)
Hell just froze over.
Just froze over? How long has it been now that RedHat has been behind an init/monitoring system that does the embrace, extend, and extinguish Microsoft Way proud? Even prouder because that system is supposed to be easy-peasy for mere users but is actually a morass of strange borg-like binaries designed and implemented by evil geniuses who don't want you to look at it too hard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/ [penny-arcade.com]
Not surprising. systemd is very Windows-inspired. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not surprised. After all, the architecture and philosophy of Red Hat's systemd appears to be very much inspired by the architecture and philosophy of Windows. Systemd is all about one-thing-doing-everything-poorly, which has typically been the Windows approach, rather than the traditional UNIX approach of many-things-each-doing-one-thing-very-well. Systemd represents the Windowsification of Linux distributions, which have traditionally taken a much more UNIX-like approach. Bringing Windows and systemd/Linux together like this makes perfect sense, because they do complement one another due to their similarities.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, I have to ask. While I understand why everyone is upset with systemd, why don't other similar programs get the same level of snub? OpenBox taking the place of a shell and a litany of GNU utilities is probably the most obvious example.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OpenBox, whatever it actually is, wasn't forced into Debian, Ubuntu, and pretty much every other major Linux distro completely against the will of the users of these distros. That's a big part of the reason why people don't dislike OpenBox. People don't get angry with something if it doesn't cause them any problems. But people do get royally pissed off when something totally unwanted is basically forced up their rectums. That's exactly what systemd was like to many Debian users: repeated, forced penetration
Re: (Score:3)
That's a big part of the reason why people don't dislike OpenBox. People don't get angry with something if it doesn't cause them any problems. But people do get royally pissed off when something totally unwanted is basically forced up their rectums.
Yeah, that's exactly why I don't dislike Apple nearly as much as I dislike Microsoft, despite all these claims about how evil Apple is these days. Sure, Apple is evil, but I'm not being forced or pressured to use Apple products. I don't spend all my free cash o
Re: (Score:1)
I see the reverse as you, and despise Apple by your same rationale. Of the "big 5" software companies, only at MS itself are you likely to find an environment dominated by MS. I hate having that Apple shit forced on me, itherwise I wouldn't care much about Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? WTF are you talking about? Where on Earth are you where you're having Apple shit forced on you? Are you in a parallel universe or something?
At ANY corporate or government job in the US, you are absolutely going to have MS shit forced on you. Everyone uses MS here. There is a very, very rare (usually small) company which uses Apples, but everyplace else you go, it's all MS. Even if a company uses a lot of Linux, they usually use MS for regular Office programs and Outlook email, and you end up usin
Re: (Score:3)
The big 5 are Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. All but MS are Apple shops for laptops (and all but MS and Apple are Linux shops otherwise). Amazon and I think Facebook allow MS, but support is second-class and MS is discouraged. Google and obvious Apple only allow MS for specific business needs (competitive analysis, cross-compat testing, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that these "big 5" represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total employment in the US (and world), don't you? And I'm pretty sure Intel is a bigger employer than several of these; it currently has 106,700 employees. It's a mostly MS shop. And IBM is still bigger than any of these, with 380,000 employees currently.
Now I'm curious, so I went ahead and looked these up. Facebook is a puny, puny little company, with only 10,082 employees. That's a tiny 1/10 of the size of Intel. Apple i
Re: (Score:2)
I speak only to my personal experience, not the rest of America.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a shit about your personal experience. My whole point is that, for most people who have any kind of corporate job involving sitting at a computer, that computer is going to be running Windows. If you've avoided that somehow, then good for you (or not, if you hate Macbooks and got stuck with those), but if you believe that your experience is commonplace, you're completely deluded. Your personal experience is irrelevant for the hundreds of millions of us out here who are stuck using Windows at
Re: (Score:2)
Err... If you didn't care then why'd you ask 'em where they worked? Sheesh. ;-) They tell you and you tell 'em you don't care. Silly kids these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you ranted about how you, personally, don't like MS because in your personal experience it was forced on you. Well, I have the same rant about Apple. Different people have different experiences and values, and what a boring world it would be if we were all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. I even think the number of Amazon employees includes the warehouse personnel, supply chain management staff, and some guys who convince (sales guys, actually) vendors to sell on Amazon. Some of these kinds of people may not be getting company laptops, and even if they do their primary work may not be "defined" by the OS on that laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Warehouse personnel probably don't get issued computers at all; they probably have handheld devices, and probably use a few centralized computers, so they probably have to use Windows on those, but they probably don't spend that much time with them. The handheld devices are very likely to run WinCE, however, which is another kind of hell. Any kind of management staff or salespeople, however, would be using Windows all day on company-issued computers.
Poorly? Not so. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have something like the following inittab fragment that I built on my production servers:
ds:4:respawn:/home/prog/schedule.sh
da:4:respawn:/home/prog/alert.sh
cx:4:respawn:/home/prog/update.sh
cx:4:respawn:/home/prog/audit.sh...
These shell scripts mostly set a number of environment variables, then exec a runas.c program that I wrote that knocks the privilege down from root. After privilege is dropped, my runas program calls exec() on the *real* program that I want init to respawn.
This works, but it's a
Re: (Score:2)
The reason many people hate systemd so much is that it goes against the core philosophy of Unix as originally thought up by Ken Thompson all those years ago.
The philosophy of having programs that do one thing and one thing only but do it right.
There is no reason you cant have a modern init system (including the ability to do the things you get out of that systemd config file and to do parallel startup of software and other things) that is JUST an init system and doesn't try to take over su, logs, inetd, ntp
Re: (Score:2)
"After all, the architecture and philosophy of Red Hat's systemd appears to be very much inspired by the architecture and philosophy of Windows."
s/Windows/launchd and SMF/
FTFY. HTH.
MS approach IS Swiss Army knife, not scalpel (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft software DOES tend to be Swiss Army Knife. MS Word has THOUSANDS of menu and option items. I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
Unix/Linux on the other hand, uses the "sort" program. It sorts. That's all. It doesn't do calculations, it doesn't know about fonts. It sorts, period.
Because "sort" only sorts, and "cut" only cuts, they are each good at what they do. Excel and other Microsoft software, on the other hand, has thousands of functions, they don't specialize in one thing. Much like a Swiss Army knife, which includes a dozen tools - tiny scissors, a two-inch saw, etc.
Neither is necessarily right or wrong, but of course a saw is better at sawing than a Swiss Army knife is, and a standard pair of scissors is better at scissoring than the tiny scissors included in a Swiss Army Knife. On the other hand, a Swiss Army knife is also very useful.
Systemd is a Swiss Army knife - it tries to pack everything and the kitchen sink into one multi-purpose thing. That's not inherently good or bad, it -is- Microsoft-like, not Unix-like.
At this point Lennart points out that systemd contains multiple binaries. Yeah, and a Swiss Army knife contains multiple blades.
Re:MS approach IS Swiss Army knife, not scalpel (Score:4, Insightful)
I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
Which is perfect if you have complex condition formatting rules. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Read his post again and try to comprehend it. His point is well laid out.
Yes, but he chose a bad example.
Given two different spradsheet programs, I would prefer the one with the "sort by font colour" option. I'd rather not have to pipe my spreadsheet to a separate "sort" program.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you prefer to click on a random place to sort on font color?
Re:MS approach IS Swiss Army knife, not scalpel (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft software DOES tend to be Swiss Army Knife. MS Word has THOUSANDS of menu and option items. I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
You've obviously never dealt with people who mail out 50,000 line spreadsheets and say, "the items in question are the highlighted rows." I had users dancing in the aisles when we gave them office 2007 which introduced the "sort by color" feature. That's pretty much the fundamental problem of bitching about MS Office: pretty much everyone agrees that only 5-10% of the feature set is ever used without ever acknowledging that everyone is using a different 5-10%.
I said that's not a bad thing (Score:2)
I didn't say having thousands or tens of thousands of features was a bad thing. In fact, I said it's NOT a bad thing. It's simply one of two ways to accomplish the same goal.
In the Microsoft approach, each program has thousands of features. There are maybe 6,000 features that Word, Excel, and Outlook all have, separately - they can all search, sort, etc. That's cool, it works for a lot people.
The other way is that you have a program which sorts (called sort), which searches (grep), etc. If you want to bot
Re: (Score:2)
You've got my apologies, I assumed the grandparent post of what I replied to ("do everything poorly") was yours as well, as opposed to an AC. For what it's worth, I, too, love the UNIX philosophy in general (lots of unitaskers piped together) though this does tend to break down as those unitaskers become more complicated. I also have to say that this also fails when comparing MS Office against standard unix utils, when the real comparison is OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc. which implement similar features
OpenOffice was MS-only for 12 years (Score:2)
For the first 12 years, OpenOffice/Staroffice ran only on Microsoft operating systems. It's a DOS/Windows program designed with a Microsoft style mindset, ported to Linux more than a decade after it was released. It's not The Unix Way. It's good and useful, and it's 100% a Windows program ported to Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
For the first 12 years, OpenOffice/Staroffice ran only on Microsoft operating systems. It's a DOS/Windows program designed with a Microsoft style mindset, ported to Linux more than a decade after it was released. It's not The Unix Way. It's good and useful, and it's 100% a Windows program ported to Linux.
The above certainly does not apply to Gnumeric, which implements similar features in similar ways and was developed by people who are strong believers in the unix philosophy. Sometimes you need a screwdriver and not a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they haven't just re-used a generic sort component, which is faster to use in-proc than forking a separate process?
Re: (Score:1)
Windows Powershell gives you the ability to join together small tools. Here is how you can do your rename operation in much less than "a couple of days"
Get-ChildItem *.jpg | ForEach-Object{Rename-Item $_ -NewName "$(Get-Random)-$($_.Name).jpg"}
(Source: http://superuser.com/questions/304687/how-to-batch-rename-files-with-a-random-name - admittedly it was quicker to search than to work out how to do it myself)
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd is a Swiss Army knife - it tries to pack everything and the kitchen sink into one multi-purpose thing. That's not inherently good or bad, it -is- Microsoft-like, not Unix-like.
At this point Lennart points out that systemd contains multiple binaries. Yeah, and a Swiss Army knife contains multiple blades.
Enough systemd fud. Your analogy makes no sense. Systemd is a wrapper to make sure that all the little applications work together correctly, more like a tool box. All your little tools collected in one place, where it's easy to get at them. Now it may not be a good toolbox; I'm not arguing that. But inherently it's a feature that Linux needs to provide functionality that any enterprise requires. Linux has moved beyond being a one person system.
Couldn't have said it better myself. (Score:2)
> Systemd is a wrapper
> All your little tools collected in one place
So it's a bunch of little tools wrapped together in a package, you say? That's nothing at all like a Swiss Army knife, then. A Swiss Army knife is completely different. A Swiss Army knife is a bunch of little tools wrapped together. As you said, systemd isn't that, systemd is a bunch of little tools wrapped together.
> But inherently it's a feature that Linux needs
It's quite a few features that Linux needs (98% of those being feat
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. The old init system was a wrapper too. It just defined things less. So the fact that systemd wraps a bunch of modules together in a systematic way isn't a bad thing at all. If, like a Swiss Army knife, it forces you to contort those things horribly to get them to fit in the wrapper (lousy analogy, okay), then it's probably bad. If it doesn't - and merely defines standards to allow init modules to work together nicely, it's a good thing. I'm guessing it's more of a good thing than a bad thin
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft software DOES tend to be Swiss Army Knife. MS Word has THOUSANDS of menu and option items. I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
You laugh but I actually found this feature useful. Admittedly to find it useful you have to understand the context. Excel is after all a program that can dyanmically alter the font colour based on any number of arbitrary conditions and even be scripted to do it. So it stands to reason that you should be able to sort the result based on your arbitrary highlighting choices.
At this point Lennart points out that systemd contains multiple binaries. Yeah, and a Swiss Army knife contains multiple blades.
The form factor of a Swiss Army Knife is limiting the ultimate utility. Unless each component of systemd is limited by some arbitrary siz
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say I've faced that specific situation, but if the font colour is based on a thing (like how overdue a bill is) then I'd have thought the obvious thing was to sort on that thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Font colours can be assigned based on a single criteria such as value. In those cases it makes sense to simply sort on value. But font colour can also be assigned for any arbitrary reason and within VB scripting.
Now VB script being horrendously slow as it is, I don't know why someone would want to put themselves through the pain of having to have it do the highlighting AND then the sorting too when the existing excel function can be only slightly modified to suit.
Now assuming that there's nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Font colours can be assigned based on a single criteria such as value. In those cases it makes sense to simply sort on value. But font colour can also be assigned for any arbitrary reason and within VB scripting.
Now VB script being horrendously slow as it is, I don't know why someone would want to put themselves through the pain of having to have it do the highlighting AND then the sorting too when the existing excel function can be only slightly modified to suit.
Now assuming that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Excel's sort function (such as using outdated high school one way bubble sort) then what good reason exists not to provide another option on which to sort?
You have to remember that the archetypal slashdotter is far above such lusery things as actually using a spreadsheets program. It's like discussing the details of an accounting program or sales contact system.
They're just *shudder* business tools, and probably involve COBOL or at least Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly.... I am forced by my employer to consider it an "engineering tool".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) do everything poorly, but ship soon, and if you can't ship, bullshit and ship later
(2) get contracts with everyone, do whatever it takes but get the contracts, let some pirate your stuff if they want to just as long as they're running it so maybe they can buy something later
(3) stay in business. profit where you can, funnel the cash into places where you can't profit yet
whereas Apple is
(1) sell luxury products
(2) people who buy Apples do it to supplement their image, and defend the Apple brand in all f
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how many distros are out there to pick from? Many of them differ in interesting ways. Not to mention, there's Minix, BSD, Plan9, etc...
I'm old. I understand but you're missing the forest for the trees. We've more choices today then we ever had! In fact, we have so many choices now that I can just try to work with something new, all the time, and I do! More often than not, I'm not even booted into a real installed operating system - so to speak. Right now, I'm sending this to you from my hotel ro
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, your choices aren't upsetting anyone (I don't think). It's just that there's so many ways and so many variations that I'm not sure I can agree with you. Between hypervisors enabling running without actually touching the bare metal to the ability to run in kernel mode, there are countless things.
I don't know if you're a curmudgeon. I'd say you're probably jaded. Go try to install Plan9 in a VM. That'll bring back some magic. If you don't have VMWare then either pirate the hell out of it or use VirtualBox
Oh boy (Score:1)
Cue the comments about angry people switching from RedHat to another Linux distro.
Fight for your bitcoins! [coinbrawl.com]
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
Cue the comments about angry people switching from RedHat to another Linux distro.
I switched years ago. I'm not angry, but redhat just fell behind in being good for what I wanted.
From what I remember, of digging through the init scripts, it's not surprising that systemd came out of Redhat. A good part of it is meant to speed up booting. Certainly back then, the people at RedHat coldn't write shell scripts for crap. The boot scripts were terrible convoluted messes. No wonder it booted slowly.
I actually cleaned up the X11 start script hugely, because one of the features I wanted was actually completely unreachable after they'd essentially rewritten it 3 times from 5 to 5.2 to 6, and then concatenated all 3 versions. I submitted a bug report and patch which went into a black hole.
I don't see any pressing reason to switch back to redhat any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you still hold a grudge to them? The versions that you mention are ancient.
What part of:
"I don't see any pressing reason to switch back to redhat any time soon."
Sounds like a grudge?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Then you have a severe problem reading basic English.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indifference is different from grudge. Parent says he couldn't be bothered to switch back. Could mean either grudge or he's simply happy with his marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely the latter, or happy enough. I've got a couple of ubuntu machines and one Arch machine. Ubuntu has it's problems too, but it's still fairly easy to get to grips with and I'm used to administering it. There's also the handy PPAs for more timely updates of things. Arch is fun and always up to date, and easy to configure to do strange things.
RHEL has possibly even longer support (haven't checked), but I don't see myself needing anything even approaching 5 year's support at the moment. When it comes
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago, in a computer shop, I bought a copy of RedHat. A few weeks later, I bought a copy of Slackware but I think it was off the 'net. I think it came with a book - but not RedHat. I think RedHat had a help file CD and maybe a booklet. Anyhow, I installed Slackware first and played with it for a while (I seem to recall we had to start xserver manually back then). Then I played with RedHat for about three days.
I haven't used it since. CentOS, yes. RedHat, no. It just didn't seem very good and that'
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago, in a computer shop, I bought a copy of RedHat. A few weeks later, I bought a copy of Slackware but I think it was off the 'net. I think it came with a book - but not RedHat. I think RedHat had a help file CD and maybe a booklet. Anyhow, I installed Slackware first and played with it for a while (I seem to recall we had to start xserver manually back then). Then I played with RedHat for about three days.
I got RedHat 5.2 from a bookshop for about 30 quid (maybe more?) and it came with 3 books
Re: (Score:2)
I must confess... I sometimes still compile my own kernel just because I like watching the text scroll by. I'll download a make from source just to see it, if I'm bored or just wanting to watch it. I don't really know what it is but it's still magical. Of course, my terminal is a gray (almost black but not quite) background with green text.
I don't recall my version of RedHat coming with books? I think it had a CD with it but it may have actually been a floppy now that I think about it. I really don't recall
You got it almost right! (Score:2)
Re:Coming up next, systemd-registryd (Score:5, Funny)
A single binary blob, accessible of course by APIs, mostly APIs written for desktop operating systems, for all of your system config needs!
Oh, come on, I am all for blowing the whistle and all, but do you really have to come out and reveal all their plans? You are not fun.
And you forgot one very important point: systemd-nsakey, for all your law enforcement needs!!
Trust Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
And after three decades of Microsoft earning zero trust I think I'll continue to take a pass. ...And remain skeptical.
Red Hat has come a long way (Score:3, Insightful)
I would add Red Hat has come a long way too. Away from the free software community on which they were built. Forcing systemd down our throats. They are no better than Micro$oft. There was a time when such a collaboration would have been unthinkable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why yes, because Red Hat don't contribute anything back to the kernel, sponsor a community distro or open source the software from companies they buy. We don't need their type around here! </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not thrilled by systemd, but Debian accepted it also...even if I don't know why, and suspect that the procedure violate the guidelines. But there may actually be some valid reason for it, even if none of the justifications have made much sense to me.
Surprising but not shocking (Score:5, Interesting)
We're in the middle of the planning for the Windows 7 to 10 transition, and 2008 R2 to 2016, so we're getting plenty of face time with the premier support guys. The message is abundantly clear -- Microsoft is done selling one-off licensed software. Everything is going to be Azure based in their mind, and on-premises installations of software are the exception now. Server 2016 has so many Azure hooks that it might as well not have been released as a standalone product. Windows 10's updating model relegates stable releases to a much more minority position than they were in the past...it requires an Enterprise Agreement/Software Assurance to deploy Windows 10 LTSB and avoid constant cumulative upgrades.
In an environment like this, where they're moving back to mainframe style custodial IT service models, why wouldn't they partner with Red Hat or any other OS vendor for that matter? They want companies to move everything into Azure, not leave some bits hanging out on-premises or with another cloud provider. The Windows vs. Linux wars are cooling off because vendors sense the juicy returns in the cloud. Why sell software once when you can force businesses to pay over and over again for decades to use your resources/products? I've said before that both Amazon and Microsoft are building their clouds on the backs of Bubble 2.0, so funding is plentiful and therefore prices are incredibly cheap. The thing to watch will be when the bubble bursts, and a duopoly exists...will those low prices continue?
Microsoft should buy RedHat (Score:3)
Microsoft should buy RedHat and provide offerings that make RHEL more compatible with a Microsoft server environment. Makes total business sense for both companies.
Otherwise, Amazon Web Services is going to eat their lunch (both Microsoft's and RedHat's)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft should buy RedHat (Score:1)
Red hat developers created it. That's the point. Those other distros adopted it because they can't write init scripts for shit and made their lives easier while fucking over users.
First they ignore you (Score:2, Insightful)
then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We won.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the champion, my friend.
Re: (Score:1)
We won.
Who won? Red Hat is diverging from the Linux and open source ideals more blatantly every year. Soon it will be essentially indistinguishable from MS.
Re: (Score:2)
According to wikipedia, Arch Linux, CoreOS, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Mageia, openSUSE, Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, and Ubuntu all have systemd. Most of those are very recognizable names. So why just pick on RedHat?
When Britain first aro-o-o-o-ose (Score:2)
Apart from the colour of the aforementioned main, what's an Azure and why would I want one?
Ugh (Score:1)
.NET as a default? Long term damage to Linux' reputation is where that'll go, due to the bad performance of most everything .NET regardless of platform. People will just say "it's slow" instead of understanding that "it's slow because it's using .NET". What a sorry direction to go.
It's a trap! (Score:2)
Microsoft Azure loves Linux .. (Score:2)