Surprise: Microsoft Has a Second Internal-Use-Only Linux Distro (zdnet.com) 59
ZDNet reports there's more than just the one Microsoft-created Linux distribution for internal use only called CBL (Common Base Linux) Mariner.
"It turns out there's another Microsoft-developed Linux distribution that's also for internal use that's known as CBL-Delridge or CBL-D." I discovered the existence of CBL-D for the first time this week in a rather round-about way. I stumbled onto a February 2 blog post from Hayden Barnes. a Senior Engineering Manager at SuSE who led the Windows on Rancher engineering team, which traced his steps in discovering and building his own image of CBL-D. Barnes noted that Microsoft published CBL-Delridge in 2020, the same year that it also published CBL-Mariner. The main difference between the two: Delridge is a custom Debian derivative, while Mariner is a custom Linux From Scratch-style distribution.
CBL-D powers Azure's Cloud Shell. The Azure Cloud Shell provides a set of cloud-management tools packaged in a container. In a note on the GitHub repo for the Cloud Shell, officials noted that "the primary difference between Debian and CBL-D is that Microsoft compiles all the packages included in the CBL-D repository internally. This helps guard against supply chain attacks...."
CBL-Mariner and CBL-Delridge are just two of the Microsoft-developed Linux-related deliverables from the Linux Systems Group. Others include the Windows Subsystem for Linux version 2 (WSL2), which is part of Windows 10; an Azure-tuned Linux kernel which is designed for optimal performance as Hyper-V guests; and Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE), a proposed Linux Security Module (LSM) from the Enterprise and Security team.
"It turns out there's another Microsoft-developed Linux distribution that's also for internal use that's known as CBL-Delridge or CBL-D." I discovered the existence of CBL-D for the first time this week in a rather round-about way. I stumbled onto a February 2 blog post from Hayden Barnes. a Senior Engineering Manager at SuSE who led the Windows on Rancher engineering team, which traced his steps in discovering and building his own image of CBL-D. Barnes noted that Microsoft published CBL-Delridge in 2020, the same year that it also published CBL-Mariner. The main difference between the two: Delridge is a custom Debian derivative, while Mariner is a custom Linux From Scratch-style distribution.
CBL-D powers Azure's Cloud Shell. The Azure Cloud Shell provides a set of cloud-management tools packaged in a container. In a note on the GitHub repo for the Cloud Shell, officials noted that "the primary difference between Debian and CBL-D is that Microsoft compiles all the packages included in the CBL-D repository internally. This helps guard against supply chain attacks...."
CBL-Mariner and CBL-Delridge are just two of the Microsoft-developed Linux-related deliverables from the Linux Systems Group. Others include the Windows Subsystem for Linux version 2 (WSL2), which is part of Windows 10; an Azure-tuned Linux kernel which is designed for optimal performance as Hyper-V guests; and Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE), a proposed Linux Security Module (LSM) from the Enterprise and Security team.
What compiler? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what compiler do they use?
GCC (Score:2)
Because AFAIK the kernel code uses a number of gcc extensions. Perhaps they're also supported by clang now but I doubt VC++ will and besides that theyd need to rewrite the entire build system to use a different compiler if for no other reason than all the gcc specific command line options in the make files.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone still holding a rust candle lit.
Today I found out (Score:5, Funny)
Hayden Barnes probably lives in West Seattle.
The joke: (Score:4, Informative)
Hayden Barnes is a character from the soap opera titled General Hospital.
Hayden comes to town, paid by Ric Lansing to pose as the wife of the amnesiac Jake Doe, so that Ric could date Elizabeth Webber, who was falling for Jake. Hayden's scheme is later exposed, but she finds out that "Jake" is really Jason Morgan, and blackmails Nikolas Cassadine with this information. However, Nikolas has Hayden shot, leaving her in a coma; she wakes up with amnesia. Hayden moves in with Nikolas, who is keeping an eye on her. Hayden later figures out the truth, but keeps quiet, and starts a relationship with Nikolas. Jason's identity is exposed, and Hayden rubs it in Elizabeth's face when Jason leaves her for her deception. Elizabeth, in turn, promises to make Hayden pay.
There's more. [wikipedia.org]
Microsoft CEO had previously called Linux "A Cancer" [slashdot.org] before an obvious fake was paid to pretend to be the Microsoft CEO, now proclaiming "We Love Open Source" [slashdot.org]. Hayden Barnes is the CEO, indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks a lot for that info. Makes the joke have context for those of us who were unaware.
Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
Just switchover the Windows kernel to Linux already!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because Apple force-migrated their user base to the Linux kernel
wat
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
So you mean that apple force migrated its username to the BSD kernel sort of?
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:5, Informative)
MacOS doesnt even use a BSD kernel, it uses Darwin which is a descendent of Mach. The BSD part is just a compatability API plus all the standard BSD command line tools and shells.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks,
I thought it was more about adding a BSD user space, but my quick internet search had me believing it was incorporated into the kernel too (along with a lot else).
Re: (Score:3)
Parent is incorrect.
Darwin is the base OS, the kernel is called Xnu and indeed it did have a lot of FreeBSD code in it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Kernel mode != actual kernel Sadly a lot of people don't understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not read?
Right from the wiki page I linked, it states:
"the kernel was updated with code derived from OSFMK 7.3 from OSF,[3] and the FreeBSD project"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, even more detail is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) part of the kernel provides the Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) application programming interface (API, BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, the network protocol stack (protocols), the virtual file system code (including a file system independent journaling layer), several local file systems such as Hierarchi
Re: (Score:2)
None of that is the core kernel - ie the bit that does process control and scheduling , memory management and hardware access. Go learn about OS kernels and their various layers get back to me. Fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking tool. You can't admit you are wrong. I know about OS kernels and architecture, and I know that FreeBSD code is in the kernel used by OS X.
Why don't you provide a source to backup your ignorant assertions, shitheel?
Oh, you can't, because you're wrong so all you can do is mouth off in frustration.
Re: (Score:3)
Darwin uses a Mach derived *microkernal*, on top of which it runs a BSD derived kernel.
And on top of the kernel is a full "rest of " BSD.
The kernel (but not the microkernel) and the rest are indeed Unix, and descended directly from that code.
Re:Oh for fuck's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
I manage our company's regression engine. Firstly, the Windows VMs run far fewer jobs than the Linux VMs, despite having the same resources. Secondly, WIndows 10 appears to be even worse than Windows 7. Maybe Windows server would be better, but the resource requirements of Windows Server are absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, WIndows 10 appears to be even worse than Windows 7.
Oh, we know.
I ran Win7 until a couple of years ago when Microsoft "updates" started crashing it, and then I formatted the drive and installed Linux Mint.
Re: (Score:2)
Server Core 2022 requires a 1.4 GHz, 64-bit CPU and 512 MB of RAM.
That's absurd?
Also, what regression issues does windows 10 have compared to 7? Or do you just not like win10 (which is completely fair enough!).
Work I've done has found 10 to have better broad compatibility compared to 7. 11 on the other hand...
Re: (Score:3)
That are the requirements to make Windows Server start. You will not be able to do much else than running the operating system with those hardware specifications.
The Core edition has barely any form of graphical user interface. Which is the intent, I know, and why it will run on those specifications. Even then, not that many extra processes can be ran on top of the processes needed by the OS.
If you need Windows Server with a GUI, a.k.a. the Desktop edition, you better have a minimum of 8 GByte of RAM to mak
Re: (Score:2)
And how much disk space?
As others have pointed out, you might be able to install it with such a small configuration, but running any programs: not in my lifetime.
Fewer simultaneous jobs without the VM hanging or jobs crashing.
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS has nothing to do with the Linux kernel.
Re: Oh for fuck's sake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like Microsoft any more than the next guy, but they seem to be doing okay with their core product lately.
The Personal computer as we know it is coming to an end, you are clearly clueless about them turning the PC into a locked down mobile device like the iphone, they are changing how exe's work in the future for trusted computing, look at this list at crackwatch there's been a war on software ownership to kill local applications for over 23+ years.
See here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Crack... [reddit.com]
This started roughly with the game industry rebranding PC rpg's "MMO's" by stealing their networking code, thereby changing
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't every mega-corp have their own Linux? (Score:2)
I know the mega-corp I work for has it's own distro.
We use it on new and potentially flakey silicon. It's very tolerant of unknown hardware that mainline linux hasn't heard of yet and comes with internal analysis tools we use on the silicon. I expect it's all compiled on our own compiler but that's not my job so I don't know.
I just figured every mega-corp has one because it's a logical thing to do when you're building your own platforms.
Re:Doesn't every mega-corp have their own Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never understood the desire to maintain a Linux distribution. It's a ton of never-ending work and there are already dozens of different groups doing it.
And I've worked for two companies that did this. One maintained a custom Linux distro for their products and the other was a silicon vendor who did it for their BSPs. To be fair, both started doing this a long time ago before there were as many options. But it was clear this custom distro was acting like a brake to development. They were always behind. Old packages, integration bugs, unfixed CVEs, lacking in packages and libraries, old toolchains, etc. Man hours had to be constantly devoted to keeping them up to date and pull in fixes that were already present in other distros.
One company has since switched to yocto and the other no longer exists.
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to install red hat on a new chip that hasn't been seen outside your lab, it is not going to work for a variety of reasons. By the time you can buy the chip, the mainline kernel has all the new stuff enabled so it can ID the chip and do the right thing.
So on what OS does that kernel development happen on? The one you put together yourself. It is indeed a ton of work, but nothing like the work involved in arranging a few billion transistors to do something useful.
Re: (Score:2)
So on what OS does that kernel development happen on? The one you put together yourself. It is indeed a ton of work, but nothing like the work involved in arranging a few billion transistors to do something useful.
I think what's unclear is why you wouldn't just have a few special packages instead of a whole distribution. You know, the way most Linux distribution variants work?
Re: (Score:3)
At one point I worked for a silicon vendor, and developed the Linux firmware for a product using one of our chips that was not yet in production. I had to write kernel drivers for things as yet unsupported. Like SGMII for the phy or even the GPIO pins! BTW, this is where the Linux kernel sysfs interfaces to gpios came from. I didn't make a Linux distro from scratch.
There's a huge difference between creating and maintaining your own distro, and only being able to install a binary distro someone else buil
Re: Doesn't every mega-corp have their own Linux? (Score:2)
Re: Doesn't every mega-corp have their own Linux? (Score:2)
The real issue will be when you try to use some of that fancy dedicated multimedia/networking hardware that sits on the silicon. The more advanced things will require custom userspace drivers/libraries/daemons, which sometimes talk to the kernel through custom vendor interfaces. You can still run your Red Hat a
Re: (Score:2)
Companies doing a dedicated desktop distribution are mad.
But building your own stripped down distribution for a specific purpose makes a lot of sense, and is kind of what linux is designed to do at its core.
The original "microsoft linux" was used to run and manage virtual backend switches in the azure datacentres.
Things like OpenWRT, Synology's OS, HomeAssistant, etc all make sense as well as a custom distro. It includes just the few small things it needs.
Re: (Score:2)
There are different reasons at different points of time that I've seen reasons for a distribution.
I have seen a company doing a bespoke distribution. It was a bit silly, but basically it was a lightly 'badged' centos with an extra repository by default. So theoretically low effort. *HOWEVER*, they for some crazy reason wrote a bespoke installer...
I have seen a team cite 'stripping down', which *can* make sense, though my team has a stripped down CentOS Stream that's under 50 megabytes. Of course, stripping
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a stripped down distro for a specific purpose, then there are already distributions for that. If your making an embedded application, then use Yocto, Buildroot, or OpenWRT. They are designed to be small. And they are designed around cross building, so one doesn't need to build on the device itself or even the same CPU architecture.
Re: Doesn't every mega-corp have their own Linux? (Score:2)
Smart (Score:2)
I'm not one of the six Microsoft fans here, but if I had their resources I would recompile everything too. I can afford to trust all of the Debian developers but they don't have any reason to. Plus Debian isn't using the most aggressive flags because they can't guarantee the hardware they'll be running on. Microsoft will literally reduce its power bill by more than the cost of a few devs by tuning.
The Gentoo guys get this, and it's admirable, but Gentoo is fast and bleeding. Arch is slow and bleeding, D
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I tried to install gentoo I chose only innocuous USE flags and it still failed.
I installed gentoo on a K6/2 laptop way way back in the early days without problems beyond a multi-day build time (I built on the device, the first time anyway) so I'm confident that the problem isn't me.
If gentoo can't be bothered to curate their packages then they're worthless. It's sad to me personally because it really made that K6 laptop fast to have everything compiled for it. I'm not sure it's actually that relev
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've ever had USE flags be the cause of a failed system, those usually just turn optional features on and off.
Well, I was setting reasonable CFLAGS and if Gentoo is delivering a buggy compiler that's their fault. And USE flags ABSOLUTELY can be breakers, there's evidence of that all over the fora.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not one of the six Microsoft fans here, but if I had their resources I would recompile everything too. I can afford to trust all of the Debian developers but they don't have any reason to. Plus Debian isn't using the most aggressive flags because they can't guarantee the hardware they'll be running on. Microsoft will literally reduce its power bill by more than the cost of a few devs by tuning.
I think that's what Microsoft was doing with the other distro:
You can't get any more bare metal than LFS [linuxfromscratch.org], since even a basic build involves building the compiler itself, and you don't have the benefit of such convenience commands as Gentoo's emerge.
What (Score:2)
"Microsoft Has a Second Internal-Use-Only Linux Distro"
Ten years ago this would have been a headline from an alternate universe.
Re: (Score:2)
SONiC is a third distro released 5years ago (Score:1)
"Internal use distribution" (Score:2)
Do people not know what the word distribution means any more?
I gain the impression that the writers of many articles simply use the word “distribution” without wondering about the significance of that term to make it sound more Linux-y. — There is no such thing as an internal-use-only distribution and whether it is, or is not, a distribution, is very important for the G.P.L. under which Linux is licensed.
Re: (Score:1)
You spew nonsense. I know organizations that have their own distros they built that are only distributed internally. And as bonus they don't have to give anyone any source code, including you.
That might be bad thing but the organizations don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
I made no moral judgement. It's simply not a distribution.
Systems ditribution is a term coined by the F.S.F. that it defines in the G.P.L., specifically to set it apart and internal use only explicitly does not qualify. — It is a technical term.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong.
BSD, D is for Distribution. Distros existed before Linux ever existed, decades before.
How funny a FSF fanboi would try to retcon a definition.
You might be one of the hundreds of millions of users of a distribution, for which no one has to give you the source code. Plenty of web services use privately rolled Linux distributions that the world uses, yet they owe no one the code because GPL 2 doesn't require it.
Hopefully better than the published one (Score:1)