Microsoft Seeks To Join the Official Linux-Distros Mailing List (theregister.co.uk) 113
Microsoft's transformation into a fully paid-up member of the Linux love-train continued this week as the Windows giant sought to join the exclusive club that is the official linux-distros mailing list. From a report: The purpose of the linux-distros list is used by Linux distributions to privately report, coordinate, and discuss security issues yet to reach the general public; oss-security is there for stuff that is already out in the open or cannot wait for things to bounce around for a few days first. Sasha Levin, who describes himself as a "Linux kernel hacker" at the beast of Redmond, made the application for his employer to join the list, which if approved would allow Microsoft to tap into private behind-the-scenes chatter about vulnerabilities, patches, and ongoing security issues with the open-source kernel and related code.
These discussions are crucial for getting an early heads up, and coordinating the handling and deployment of fixes before they are made public. To demonstrate that Microsoft qualifies for membership alongside the likes of Ubuntu, Debian, and SUSE, he cited Microsoft's Azure Sphere and the Windows Subsystem For Linux (WSL) 2 as examples of distro-like builds.
These discussions are crucial for getting an early heads up, and coordinating the handling and deployment of fixes before they are made public. To demonstrate that Microsoft qualifies for membership alongside the likes of Ubuntu, Debian, and SUSE, he cited Microsoft's Azure Sphere and the Windows Subsystem For Linux (WSL) 2 as examples of distro-like builds.
How long do you think until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: How long do you think until... (Score:1)
never.
theyd never allow that sort of control over a microsoft os
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
never.
theyd never allow that sort of control over a microsoft os
Back when Microsoft seemed to be somewhat keeping up with security fixes and made updates that actually worked, that might have made sense.
Today, however, Microsoft is spinning it's wheels just trying to stay ahead of the malware arms race, whilst it's source code has gotten too old and too bloated for anyone to fully understand anymore.
Adopting the open source Linux kernel and moving on with Windows as a legacy compatibility layer over top just makes too much economic sense for Microsoft to ignore. If they
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love a systemdless Linux distro! (Score:2, Funny)
I'd love a professional-grade (so not like Devuan or Slackware) Linux distro that did not include systemd, PulseAudio, Wayland, GNOME 3, or any of the other "modern" software that has ruined my Linux experience.
If it takes Microsoft to do it, then so be it. I trust Microsoft more than the open source leadership at this point.
Take a peek @ PCLinux then (I did)... apk (Score:1)
Take a peek @ PCLinux then (I did) https://distrowatch.com/?newsi... [distrowatch.com] 5.1.10 Kernel & KDE 5.16.1 (.2 post patch) no systemd either.
* I used KUbuntu 18.04 Long Term Support for a year exactly which is a systemd based distro (glad I did, just to learn more about systemd 'hands on') but I AM FINDING the distro I showed you BETTER (no periodic minute long lags I saw in KUbuntu BUT that may be just fixes done in KDE & the updated newest possible Kernel in a prebuilt distro).
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy - so far, I
Systemd is Microsoft-like (Score:2)
Systemd is certainly the style of software that Microsoft likes.
Call it "comprehensive" and "feature-rich" if you want, or call it bloated. It's Microsoft style, as opposed to *nix style.
That's the definition of the Unix philosophy (Score:2)
The UNIX philosophy, set out by Ken Thompson, as documented by Doug McIlroy in the Bell System Technical Journal from 1978:
Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".
Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don't clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don't insist on interactive input.
Design and build software, even o
Re: (Score:3)
This question should be taken outside and shot.
Re:How long do you think until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, right now it's the opposite - Windows is going to have the Linux kernel inside it. Yes, really.
You see, The Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) exposed a major flaw in Windows - the kernel is slow. Of course, we knew that, but it's a lot harder to dismiss when you can take two identical PCs, and run the same binary code and have Windows be visibly slower than the Linux machine doing the same thing.
Even worse, it was in a critical part of Windows (I believe disk I/O). I suspect Microsoft realized it when checking out Windows source (via git - remember, they do use git now) was way faster on Linux that it ever was on Windows (hence why the Windows git team created the git file system "gvfs" they call it).
So Microsoft decided instead of doing all this, they're going to use Hyper-V instead and have a real Linux kernel running instead of Windows emulating the system calls. It provides better compatibility and it also means things are faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, MS found that disk IO in Linux running under WSL was slow, not that Windows' IO was slow. WSL1 doesn't have a Linux kernel at all, it is just a wrapper around the Linux kernel interface that redirects Linux syscalls to Windows ones. So it's literally impossible for WSL's IO to be faster than native Windows, because WSL is using the Windows kernel for IO behind the scenes. It's pretty obvious that the same binary running on WSL would be slower than running directly on Linux, because WSL is emulatin
Re: (Score:2)
The Window kernel isn't slow. Rather it has a VMS style threading vs process design. It takes latency to create a process with a file handler as Windows prefers threads. Once opened it's just as fast if not faster with atomic asynchronous io.
Unix on the other opens and closes processes for each command in Git and other utilities many many times over.
Also Windows defender slows it down too each write request. Whitelisting this speeds things considerable
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it will be more like MacOS. Not Linux exactly, but you can do a lot of the same stuff with it. With WSL it's already pretty capable.
Re: (Score:2)
it's probably not that far away. After all, Microsoft has to support (real) Linux on Azure. Why not their own distribution that they can subtly fuck with, instead of something sensible like Debian?
Re: (Score:2)
a full blown Linux based Windows distro appears?
Microsoft is transitioning Windows to a Linux infrastructure. Linux is a more secure OS than is Windows with the Windows apps in deep connection with the OS. As Windows relies more and more on Linux, the support staff for MS will be shrinking, both in numbers and in salaries.
Re: (Score:1)
As said before, never.
However, one could argue that there will be (and already is) a Windows-based Linux distro, i.e. Windows 10 with WSL. Though I will leave such arguing to people who have experience with WSL. I haven't tried it because I don't use Windows.
Actually, I think that is the point Microsoft is arguing here.
Re: (Score:2)
a full blown Linux based Windows distro appears?
Oh? [slashdot.org]
This also excludes the Linux kernels in azure. They may list distros on Azure but they do include their kernels as it needs a modified Microsoft one.
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud you, sir. That's some fine trolling you're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Wanting C# to be the primary language for Linux is fucking absurd. What the hell does "default programming language" even mean in the context of an operating system?
It was clear trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting C# to be the primary language for Linux is fucking absurd. What the hell does "default programming language" even mean in the context of an operating system?
It was clear trolling.
I don't think it was trolling at all.
Some of those items on ACs list are things I'd like to see in my Linux based Linux!
But since the topic was Linux based Windows-centric, even the other items from AC at least make some sense, even if I wouldn't want them.
But to be fair, I wouldn't want them for the exact same reason AC does want them. I am far more knowledgeable with Unix so prefer the traditional Unix tools I am used to. It only makes sense a person used to Windows would want some of those preferred an
Re: (Score:2)
If you want all those things, why not just run Windows?
Seriously, C# as a default language? Truly the most idiotic thing I've ever read. It's as if the original poster doesn't even know what *nix is.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want all those things, why not just run Windows?
Because that wouldn't be running a Linux distribution with windows userspace :P
Seriously, C# as a default language? Truly the most idiotic thing I've ever read. It's as if the original poster doesn't even know what *nix is.
Look at it from a Windows point of view: Ignore the Kernel source.
Windows programmers don't have access outside of drivers to muck with the windows kernel anyway. It's just not a thing.
Now, without the kernel source, what within Unix or Linux absolutely requires C?
The first thing that comes to mind are drivers. Except no. There are already drivers in C++ too.
Why not C# ?
C# can already load a Linux C based library to directly
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing that comes to mind are drivers. Except no. There are already drivers in C++ too.
Why not C# ?
C# can already load a Linux C based library to directly interact with using P/invoke.
In fact C# can directly load libc and make syscalls as easily as in a dll.
To summarize: in C# you can jump hoops to have some limited access to C libraries doing 'raw system stuff'.
You certainly don't want a driver to be dependent on 300MB runtime libraries. A library that's supposed to run in userland in the first place, not in kernel space.
Compiled C code (or C++ as you wish, not very different) exists as a relative small object file until linked to something else, like an application, shared library or kernel module, and contains a bunch of real CPU instructions as described b
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, somewhere on this planet someone is programming a kernel and drivers in C#. But apart a 'proof of concept', from a performance and security stance of view that raises serious questions, for Linux it would be ridiculous and even Microsoft didn't go that way for their drivers, and you now know why.
Well yes, that's why I said going C# on linux would inconvenience the less-than-1% of windows developers that wanted to make a driver.
In case that wasn't clear, I meant that it would inconvenience them because you wouldn't want to make a driver in C#, not meaning they -would- do it in the round about ways it lets you.
It's the same reason I pointed out that you wouldn't do kernel development in it, although I specifically said they wouldn't do kernel development at all, in any language, since that is the cas
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with a Microsoft kernel or the grandparents desire for a non shitty gui?
C# != .net. They are not part of .net core but you can use it to compile code for .net.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with a Microsoft kernel or the grandparents desire for a non shitty gui?
Absolutely nothing.
Seeing as the first post of the thread was someone wanting a linux distro, with linux kernel, and windows GUI/tools/api, I'm not sure why you would expect anything other than having absolutely nothing to do with those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not C#
I don't know what the best choice is, but it probably wouldn't be awful. Certainly it would be better than still coding everything in C. People sometimes turned to Python and Perl for GUIs and infrastructure and I suspect it's a better choice than either of those for infrastructural stuff.
It isn't any worse off in resources and performance than doing the same thing in C++,
It really is. It has a GC for a start.
Even back with SGI Irix, while they never abandoned C, they encouraged using Ada for appl
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention c# isn't the default language in Windows anyway. It is .net and poweshell :-). This story is about the kernel not userland development tools.
I never liked the idea of a default language. Different strokes for different folks and the new modern Microsoft includes Android, R, and even python now if you install visual studio 2017 or 2019. 2019 even has an option to install clang too! :-O
I think people confuse .net core and c#. Not that I would advocate using it of course
Exclusive club? (Score:1)
That's why I lost interest in Linux distros (I roll my own).
Arch Linux has private mailing lists and/or ones that are only read-only. They and their ilk can go fsck themselves; I'm taking my fork and going home.
At the "beast" of Redmond (Score:1)
Funny mistake, but pretty sure you meant "behest".
Also, I really hate the practice of calling Microsoft "Redmond". Yeah, I understand the shorthand, but it's annoying nonetheless, especially if one lives next door and doesn't only associate the town with Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the Windows registry (and the XML vomit that they've replaced some of the config with) and event logging system any different than systemd?
Re: (Score:3)
Usable is a stretch. Searching event logs in Windows is painful and slow, and the registry is its own kind of nightmare. I view systemd as the equivalent. Both systems are equally horrendous. For admin purposes, plain text is king in my books.
Re: (Score:2)
Real fun when it's the Security log, which can be absolutely monstrous.
Re: Well, why not? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd need a bit of proof before I'd believe "without any help from Microsoft", as I seem to remember several instances where such "help" was provided or alleged. Proving such allegations isn't something that's very easy, however. And who funded the "SCOX" case against IBM? There's circumstantial evidence that it was Microsoft. Not proof, of course. And who packed the meetings deciding on the official open word processor specifications in Portugal? And....
Well...in each case there's a bit of doubt. But there is a huge amount of "circumstantial evidence" around a very large number of design issues and standards decisions that points a finger at Microsoft.
Step 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They will get to extinguish, but it's Windows they are trying to kill, not Linux.
Re: (Score:1)
Proof people have been hiding under rocks for decades. Keep up please, you're only making yourself look like a fool.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean you're a tad late - Microsoft cracked the top 20 corporate Linux kernel contributors back in 2012.
Fwiw - they like money and have been writing code to make Linux work on their cloud architecture and Hyper-V to make customers happy.
Step 2 (Score:3)
Ignorance [wikipedia.org]
Maybe look up how MS's EEE strategy actually worked. You'll find they simply cannot do it here, even if they wanted to, even if we would credit their current leadership with the intelligence to try. Their strategy in the 90s relied on a very fine set of market conditions applied in very specific and targeted scenarios If anything their work in the past 5 years has been more of an "if you can't beat it, then join them and make lots of money selling support for them" as can be seen in their wonderfu
Need to join official Windows mailing list (Score:2)
How Times Change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The OS is already virtually a commodity product. What OS you are using is largely irrelevant today. That's why MS is killing Windows.
Re: How Times Change (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At various times Microsoft has made numerous protestations of amity. For many of them there was merely no follow-up, but several of them were demonstrated to be outright lies. Others were a camouflage for, essentially, blackmail. (My paraphrase is "We're really friendly, and we'll sell you the right to use our patent. We just won't tell you what patent we're talking about. Oops, no, that patent you infringed wasn't the one we licensed you, pay up.")
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to tell whether you're serious (an therefore a fucking halfwit) or actually believe crap like this.
MS is killing Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Mark my prediction:
Within 3 years time, MS will opensource Win32 and release a fully compatible version for Linux, capable of natively running all third party Win32 software. Then Windows will be released as a full blown Linux distribution. Windows as we know it today will be completely irrelevant. MS will then focus fully on it's service offerings.
Re: MS is killing Windows (Score:2)
They will do that one time only. Then walk away and allow it to decay into Oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like this [wired.com]was envisioned as early as 2005...
Re: MS is killing Windows (Score:2)
That is really funny to read today.
Re: MS is killing Windows (Score:2)
Well, the person who predicted it 10 years ago May be proven right yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Mark my prediction:
Within 3 years time, MS will opensource Win32 and release a fully compatible version for Linux, capable of natively running all third party Win32 software. Then Windows will be released as a full blown Linux distribution. Windows as we know it today will be completely irrelevant. MS will then focus fully on it's service offerings.
What a silly prediction. Their OS *IS* one of their key service offerings, and one that is making them a fuckton of money. Why shoot the golden goose and sell a repainted duck instead?
Re: MS is killing Windows (Score:2)
Windows is still profitable today, but it's ongoing maintenance and continuous eternal backwards comparability is becoming too much of a liability. Extrapolating the cost of maintenance into the future becomes unsustainable. Plus, admit it or not, Windows isn't the dominant OS anymore. It's negligible in the device space, being crushed in the server and super computer space, and even losing marketshare in the laptop and desktop world. MS is smart enough to recognize this. They have to have a 5-10 year plan,
Re: (Score:2)
not at all, windows is actually one of the smaller sources of income for MS these days.
they make a lot of more money out of azure, saas, xbox, etc.
giving up windows at this point would still make a dent on their overal profit, but not that much.
Re: (Score:2)
ROFLMAO
I love your naivete. :)
Slashdot as usual... (Score:1)
M$ does work with Linux!!! Embrace Extend Extingush!! M$ is evil!!
Re: Slashdot as usual... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I get plain text=
emails all the time from=
Outlook. It's a fantastic=
email program!=
Just like Machiavelli said (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
psh, we all know it was Tony Stark
Re: (Score:2)
"Keep your friends closer and your enemies closer."
I don't think Linux is Microsoft's enemy. Not when you look at how much money they are making offering Linux on Azure. I see this as basic due diligence to keep close to the development of a product they are actually offering and get paid for.
As much as it blows a typical OSS supporter's mind, MS has managed to monetise open source software without actually providing any of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as it blows a typical OSS supporter's mind, MS has managed to monetise open source software without actually providing any of their own.
They've actually opened source some things. .Net Core, VS Code, Calc.exe (haha!), their new terminal. I don't see it as any different than say, Amazon. They profit from open source far more than they contribute back. I don't think it really "blows anyones minds".
I just don't trust Microsoft and I never will. Windows 10 is spyware, they abuse their patent portfolio, etc. Microsoft is evil, I don't care how much lip service they pay to open source.
Windows is cancer, you have been warned (Score:1)
If anyone thinks MS will play it nice, he will soon understand what backstabbing means. Be it through patents, FUD, branding, don't forget, Linux is THE enemy, and they have a swarm of lawyers to enforce their positions. MS has not been able to destroy now they try to absorb (which has been their strategy for everything in the windows world for ever...).
So if you believe you will see the end of windows and have li