why not? it’s not like there is any competition.
Microsoft is making more money off Linux with Azure than several red hats combined.Yes, but people find this interesting because historically, Microsoft was actively trying to destroy Linux (look up Halloween documents) and even said that Linux is cancer.
A lot changed after Satya Nadella took the helm. The modern .NET platform is really quite nice, and MS does a lot of
FOSSopen source work.Obviously it’s good to be sceptical, they’re a large corporation and all they want is money, they’re not our friends. They’re just not as draconian as they were in the 90s and the 00s.
Usually FOSS is specifically copyleft licences like the GPL, which Microsoft don’t use. Their open-source stuff tends to be MIT.
While you’re correct, that’s funny because as a developer using a framework like dotNET, MIT gives YOU more freedom. At least for anything statically linked where the GPL code would end up as part of your binary and force you to GPL your own code I believe.
MIT gives YOU more freedom
After years of debate about licenses for my own software (that only I use…), my philosophy has been boiled down to this: MIT for libraries. GPL for programs.
This way, other developers can freely use your library, and your program remains free.
That’s competely sensible if you ask me. Though there’s also nothing wrong with MITing your programs if you want to. By making the source available, you’ve already done plenty for the users.
At least for anything statically linked where the GPL code would end up as part of your binary and force you to GPL your own code I believe.
Anything more lax is fine, so you could also release your code under MIT license if you use GPL modules. Yes, it does force you to release your code but after all it’s a protection for the user. Furthermore, GPL does not mean your software has to be free of charge, you can still sell it as long as you attach the source code for the end user.
I find the distinction that dynamically linking GPL is fine but statically linking it is not to be so ridiculous. That’s obviously just an implementation detail. The only conceivable difference other than the pointless “technuchalley your program contains GPL code now as part of the file” is that you have to do dynamic linking, which is slightly slower. How does the fact that your work is dynamically linked vs statically linked make any difference to the people writing GPL libraries??
I think that’s for LGPL. For GLP any form of linking requires the code to be licensed under GPL, too. The dynamic linking except isn’t that bad of you think about it. It gives you the freedom to update or replace the library at any time. For security critical libs (TLS, GPG, …) that’s a big plus.
Dynamic linking let’s you use an already packaged library that its source you don’t touch.
Static linking means you have to show the source just in case you did some change.
The GPL protects the freedom of the user primarily, not the developer.
Exactly. Debating which of copyleft or permissive licensing is “more free” is always the wrong question. The correct question is "freedom for whom?
The way I like to think of it is that non-copyleft licences are like giving everyone freedom by saying there are no laws - suddenly, you can do anything, and the government can’t stop you! However, other people can also do anything and the government can’t stop them, either, and that includes using a big net to catch other people and make them their slaves. The people caught in the nets aren’t going to feel very free anymore, and it’s not unreasonable to think that a lot of people will end up caught in nets.
Copyleft licences are like saying there are no laws except you’re not allowed to do anything that would restrict someone else’s freedom. In theory, that’s only going to inconvenience you if you were going to do something bad, and leaves most people much freer.
The idea is basically that you shouldn’t be able to restrict anyone else’s freedom to modify the software they use, and if you’re going to, you don’t get to base your software on things made by people who didn’t.
Huh? FSF counts the MIT license as free, though they call it the Expat license they list it as both Free and GPL compatible: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat It is also listed as an opensource licence by the OSI.
Thus by definition MIT is a FOSS licence.
That is a good point. Thank you for the correction!
I thought MIT is the “do whatever you want with my code but don’t blame me if it breaks something”-license. Am I misinformed?
FOSSopen sourceThere is no world in which crossing one of those terms out to replace it with the other is valid and not disinformation.
“Free Software” is defined by GNU. “Open Source” is defined by the Open Source Initiative. Those are the only valid definitions of those terms of art.
They may differ in tone and emphasis, but they are compatible: every piece of code that can validly be described as “Free Software” can also be described as “Open Source,” and vice-versa. The notion that there exists code which is “Open Source” but not “Free Software” is false, and anyone pretending that there is such a distinction (e.g. Microsoft’s past attempt at promoting “shared source”) is either misled himself or trying to mislead.
I’m not trying to accuse you of anything, but I just want to make sure we’re all clear on that point.
I’m a bit confused here.
I used to work for a company that published the source code for one of their products. I.e. made it publicly available.
But many of the build tools and build infrastructure were proprietary and internal (not published publicly.)
So I’d say that was open source but not free, since you can’t really build and run it.
Publishing source code is not sufficient to make something “Open Source.” Your company’s thing was better described as “proprietary with source code available.”
No, he doesn’t. That document supports my argument, not yours:
The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.
I was skeptical when Microsoft bought GitHub but since then, they have fully reversed course and even made a formal apology on their historical stance on Linux.
They’ve even made several additions to the kernel, mostly to support WSL but still.
The rumor is that Microsoft is working on their own distribution.
I mostly agree that what they are doing now is good for FOSS, but I don’t believe that they switched to the good side. Microsoft may support FOSS because they now profit from it, but you shouldn’t forget that they are still spying on their customers and doing other unethical stuff. As any big company, what they want is money and you shouldn’t believe that they are your friends or they want your good. (I’m not saying you think that, but many people idealize companies and forget that all they want is money)
Microsoft is a large, public corporation. They simply can’t be good. Profit as the single motive of their existence ensures that.
Exactly what I mean!
You mean this one?
Maybe?
My understanding is that it’s supposed to replace Windows, while providing native backwards compatibility for legacy apps.
I don’t know enough about mariner to say for sure.
Do they plan to just enhance wine for that?
It’s been 10 damn years. How long you people going to be surprised?
Some things just can’t be forgotten.
WSL has been integrated into Windows for a while now. The days you’re referring to are in the past.
Windows: What is my purpose?
User: You are a bootloader to install Linux.
Oh my god
“An expensive bootloader at that, but hey you already paid us when you bought your laptop thanks to our decades-old grip on the market, so we could not care less what you do next”
AHEM powershell activation scripts AHEM
Grub
Oh my Bill
Thought that was what PXE boot was for
While I see an extensive amount of “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” and do agree that this is the typical logic of Microsoft.
It’s obvious this is to try and avoid getting hit with similar monopoly accusations that their competitors are receiving.
“Look, Look!! We support other Operating Systems! We have a guide! We’re not a monopoly! See, See!!”
This has way more to do with Azure is their main product and they know what people want to run on the cloud runs on Linux workloads. They’ve seen their Kuberbetes numbers, they know where the money is
and their OS is becoming an AD + 365 sub selling machine
There’s definitely an element of that, but imo their recent embrace of WSL and linux tooling for development is just to try and expand their market share in the software development space. Very few devs develop on windows unless they’re game devs, C# devs or working on something else that requires windows/Microsoft tooling, everyone else is on Linux and macOS because windows is bad for developing software.
It’s basically an admission that their tooling is bad, but it’s fine because you can just run linux development tools on windows now, so please don’t switch to Linux fully
Why is windows bad for development? Outside of specific languages or IDEs which suck for Windows, why would windows be bad for development?
Start your pc, start the IDE and type away. Docker runs in windows so running databases, redis, rabbitmq, elastic or whatever is not an issue.
In my experience, it’s damn near impossible (or at least used to be. I don’t use windows anymore) to get cli programs to work the way they should. I’d edit the environment variables, logout, login, restart the computer, check the variables again, set the variables again, and after about 20 times windows would go “oh yeah, there’s that compiler you were talking about”. With Linux I just get whatever language/libraries/compiler/interpreter I want and its there. At most I might have to ‘source .bashrc’ or something.
Your assertions are not supported by industry analysis.
While this years survey is closed, the results haven’t been published. In last year’s survey, MacOS slightly edged out Linux, moving to second place.
Well, I don’t think it’s anti-monopoly evidence, but instead a way to intercept a popular search phrase and control the narrative.
You search for “how to download and install linux” in google, and the very top link is the Microsoft page. And the narrative is:
-I just want to get started: Oh, use WSL, that way you are using Windows really, and just a touch of Linux
-I need to use it for real: Oh, then use Azure, you can have us set up those scary Linux instances for you and Microsoft Terminal will hook you right up to those instances
-I really really want to use it: Ok, but remember, you’ll lose access to Windows applications, so there are downsides, and also, we are going to make this hands down the scariest looking procedure of the three…I don’t think this is the reason. Windows is in no danger of being a monopoly
They just got through the US, EU, and UK courts regarding the Activision/Blizz acquisition. In which they gave up some streaming rights to Ubisoft to appease concerns ragarding game pass monopoly. It’s probably on their mind.
deleted by creator
No, you don’t. You can just be unverified forever
You can use a Microsoft-approved crack
Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft’s best long-term strategy. That’s why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China’s 120 million PCs. “It’s easier for our software to compete with Linux when there’s piracy than when there’s not,” Gates says.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2007/jul/18/winningthrough
Also, if everyone is used to the Windows environment, there is little reason for most businesses to get something but Windows and that’s where Microsoft makes the money. Almost everyone who has done anything with computers has used Windows and doesn’t need to be specifically taught.
Pretty sure that was recently patched, as in last week, though it was open for years. Im sure something will take its place
It has started working again. https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Scripts#note-hwid-activation-is-working-again-with-a-new-method
lmaoooo let’s goooooo
Or they’ll just make it work again
Windows -at this point- is free to use at least for personal reasons and there are zero consequences if you don’t activate your copy. They used to give you deadline in the XP/Vista era to activate your copy but not anymore. All you get is a watermark in the corner that either bothers you or not. They are as well very sloppy with closing activation methods, they could just close a new gate every patch Tuesday but they don’t do it. It is far far more important to them that everyone is using windows and there is a high chance based on last week’s news that there will be a subscription “premium” version like in any app that removes ads and enables AI features.
All you get is a watermark in the corner
Well, that is a consequence. Just not a very big one. You also cannot change the background in the settings, though that is also a very small consequence. Yeah, they are only small and you can likely live with them, but small and tolerable are not zero.
there will be a subscription “premium” version like in any app that removes ads and enables AI features.
This makes me glad I no longer use it. An OS should not have ads baked into its core and there should not be a subscription for it.
Maybe for now it’s just the background and the watermark.
Like every other subscription service, they will start to fuck with you.
Specifically background changes from the settings*
You can just right click an image in File Explorer and set it as desktop background :p
I’m reminded of Google’s financial support for Firefox, so as to dissuade the idea that they are a monopoly
In exchange, FF uses Google search by default. So they’re also getting direct value from the deal.
Maybe their Linux distro will use bing.
And they’ll bake in ads to the desktop.
Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux Distros, already did that.
Or are we just hating on Windows?
I love when people on the Internet say “X did Y quietly” to make it more suspenseful. This doesn’t look quiet to me…
What does “quietly” even mean? Didn’t take out ads in Times Square?
Also how is this bad?
Not bad, just ironic
Microsoft must make 40% of their revenue off of Azure at this point. I would not be surprised if more than 50% of that is on Linux. Windows is probably down to 10% ( around the same as gaming ).
https://www.kamilfranek.com/microsoft-revenue-breakdown/
Sure there are people in the Windows division who want to kill Linux and some dev dev folks will still prefer Windows. At this point though, a huge chunk of Microsoft could not care less about Windows and may actually prefer Linux. Linux is certainly a better place for K8S and OCI stuff. All the GPT and Cognitive Services stuff is likely more Linux than not.
Do people not know that Microsoft has their own Linux distro? I mean an installation guide is not exactly their biggest move in Linux?
Do people not know that Microsoft has their own Linux distro?
MS has been at Linux expos since 2004! They started working on SUSE in friggin 2006! I truly don’t get the amount of bile and ignorance the Lemmy community has towards them, it’s like half these folks are still on 2001-era slashdot, talking about FUD and Micro$oft.
Yeah, Microsoft has been a shit company making mediocre products its whole lifetime, but the amount of unhinged hatred here does not in any way match the present-day company’s actions.
The hatred literally stems purely from Windows 10 and 11.
They are products engineered so expertly to frustrate you in such a distasteful way it’s downright offensive to anyone who has used any other operating system. It’s genuinely a marvel of human engineering.
Microsoft contributes to Linux and other open source projects in many ways, including financially. The cynical among us believe it’s for the same reason Google contributes to Mozilla. Legally it’s harder to prove you’re an evil monopoly if you financially support your competition. Microsoft’s involvement in Linux only became noteworthy after their 2001 Antitrust suit.
I got radicalized by Slashdot. But I don’t regret it.
Great source, but it also shows they make 23% off office. Together with Windows, that’s over 30% of their revenue.
Office doesn’t work on Linux, so it really doesn’t make financial sense to push Linux
Also, if you spend any amount of time around the Linux Kernel Mailing List, there’s no shortage of microsoft.com email addresses involved and contributing here and there.
I would not be surprised if more than 50% of that is on Linux.
Depending how you count “on Linux” the over/under is closer to 90%.
I have one dream for Linux. I’m a huge OSS fan and I want to see it thrive.
I think Microsoft should partner with Oracle to make Oracle Linux 9 support all the Microsoft ecosystem. I want AD in Linux. I want Microsoft Word on Linux. Oracle Linux 9 is the obvious successor to RHEL and Microsoft has an opportunity here to build something great.
Lmao just kidding
I was about 90% reading this going wtf is this guy on?
You got me, I had my torch and pitchfork ready and my FOSS-themed chanting was growing louder…
You actually can use Active directory with linux
It’s a huge portion and an important technology Linux or not - doesn’t hurt to learn somethin new especially when it’s helpful
I could see that with Ubuntu since they are already throwing money and dev time to support it. Also DoD is already putting out automated STIGs for it.
So the Embrace-Extend-Extinguish continues…
They’re having issues with step 3 on Linux
Where I’m from, Triple E is something spread by mosquitoes… something about it just attracts blood suckers I guess
More like:
1 - embrace it in the cloud 2 - profit madly 3 - extend 4 - profit more
It makes me chuckle that people think Microsoft actually wants to extinguish Linux. I mean, the Windows division sees it as a competitor to be vanquished I guess. Over at Azure though, it is the golden goose.
Linux is omnipresent in serverspace, while Windows Server is used for AD and nothing else. I would say that the usual aproach is moot here.
How many years will you people keep parroting this? Show me the extinguish part already…
Wouldn’t it happen by now considering how much MSFT/corporate influence Linux already has?
My perspective is that it’s there so it shows up on search results for “installing Linux” and recommends WSL over bare metal. At least that’s how I understand the wording.
But who knows.
True. Dont trust that company. They may invest 1% of their money into WSL now, but its for making the “Linux” experience so good there literally is no reason for many anymore, to really switch.
Indeed, it’s to contain the “Linuxification” of the developer community.
Before WSL, any developer dealing with backend development almost had to install Linux to have a vaguely decent development environment to align with what they get to use on the servers. While they were dragged into that world by their requirements, they may find that the packaging and window management is actually pretty cool. There reluctance to venture out of the Windows world transforms into acceptance and perhaps even liking it.
Now with WSL, those Windows desktop users say “I just need to click a distribution in the Microsoft Store and I’m golden and don’t have to deal with that scary Linux world I don’t know yet.”.
I’ve repeatedly have people notice I’m running a Linux desktop when I’m presenting and off hand say “you know you can just run Linux under Windows, you don’t have to endure Linux anymore”. They seem to think I’m absurd for actually preferring Linux when I can get away with it.
I think they are all in on wsl
This is a thing about huge companies. They can only ignore alternatives at their own peril.
The Windows team probably prefers you don’t ever install Linux even though they wised up and created WSL (so they don’t lose developers to Linux desktop the way they lost creative designers to Mac).
The other teams? VSCode, Office 365, Azure, GitHub, Bing, Skype, etc wisely DGAF what your OS is - just that it’s supported so you can use it.
But depending on the software (looking at you Teams) they GAF which browser you use.
teams is just a web page, the app is electron
They rebuilt a whole new version, it’s using webview2 now.
That is not better.
WSL has actually been part of Windows in one form or the other since the very first NT, initially because US state contracts required a “supports POSIX” checkbox and the implemented just enough to be able to tick that (and, consequently, it sucked), it’s also why NTFS has a POSIX mode for filenames. It was definitely a very unloved stepchild during the Gates/Ballmer years, back when MS was pushing Windows servers. Nowadays they have their own Linux distro to do server stuff, the whole company strategy shifted, Windows isn’t an anchor point, any more, their corporate support contracts are. In a sense they’re trying to be SAP for small companies (for SAP values of “small”. MS itself is a small company on the SAP scale). That is cloud-supported, which has some (but not gigantic) synergy with their gaming arm.
They just realized that an Azure subscription will generate far more revenue (as in “several orders of magnitude” more) than selling licenses or even OS subscriptions to final users. This was by design. The current CEO doesn’t care what happens to Windows as long as it supports his quest for infinite profits.
ironic, a FOSS kernel killing windows in the name of profit
Thank you.
Ways Lemmy is already feeling like modern reddit: Instead of link to an article, we get screenshot of a post with a screenshot of the article.
Old habits die hard
Great! Then now you’re ready to install Microsoft Edge on your fresh new linux installation: https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/edge/pool/main/m/microsoft-edge-stable/ 🤡
It comes with bing search pre configured for you so you don’t have to look for the settings, we also hid them so you don’t accidentally switch to duckduckgo because we believe Linux users shall experience the full potential of our services even out abroad on another OS
For all two people who genuinely use edge on Linux, it’s still a more private experience than Windows. Regardless, more power to them
You could not live with your own OS. Where did that bring you?
Back to meIf only they stop overwriting boot loader.
Install linux second and create a second boot partition. most distros will probe foreign os and add a grub chainloader entry from grub to windows boot partition. windows never lnows about the other boot partition
