OSDev.org

And, for simple use, it's free!

QEMU with SDL will work if you install an X server. I haven't had any terminals collapsing randomly yet. GCC cross-compiles smoothly, and not noticeably slower if slower at all.


Free tiers of cloud services are awesome. Not just as an evaluation test (you can do that with a two-week trial) but for trying out new designs and products. I used their free tier recently to test the latency of a cloud-based Lync architecture.

Actually they do, and there are leaked documents stating just that. It's also quite clear from their actions of late: it's the classic "take over and kill off" approach that's worked so many times for commercial software companies.And then they'll turn Linux into just another of their bloated piles of crap that they force onto people and don't pay any regards to what their users want and only care about how much money they can make from it. It's completely possible:

1. Microsoft integrate a Linux subsystem into Windows
2. Microsoft develop their own Linux distro to replace Ubuntu as the base for WSL (and integrate proprietary components into the distro)
3. Microsoft sell their distro to the business market as an "official Microsoft-endorsed and supported alternative to Ubuntu Server and RHEL" (i.e. using FUD against the other distros as a way of convincing IT administrators to switch)
4. Microsoft displace other enterprise Linux distros in the business and server market
5. Microsoft sell their distro, at a lower cost and with fewer packaged applications, to the home market, citing their success in the business market as evidence that it is superior to other Linux distros ("clearly business prefer Microsoft Linux to Ubuntu" - not mentioning that businesses only use it because Microsoft used their brand name to sell it to them)
6. Microsoft displace other home Linux distros among home users (the kind that would have been using WSL previously), who will rather pay Microsoft to get something that is "clearly better" and comes with a brand name behind it than to get a free distro such as Ubuntu
7. As Microsoft are now the leader in the Linux distro industry, they infiltrate their developers into the main open source projects that they are using, displacing the original developers who can't keep up with Microsoft's paid employees
   • Where possible from a licensing point of view, Microsoft fork the original project and develop their own proprietary version that their paid developers develop at a quicker rate than the original project can keep up with
   • If forking is not possible from a licensing point of view, Microsoft simply flood the original project with commits until the original developers say "we can't keep up anymore" and hand the project management over to Microsoft
   • If the original developers don't say "we can't keep up anymore", Microsoft have still effectively taken over the project because they're writing more code than everybody else
8. In time, Microsoft displace common open-source Linux applications such as Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, etc. with their own proprietary versions, and the open-source projects die off because almost nobody's using them anymore (because most users are using Microsoft Linux, which includes the proprietary applications by default)
9. Consequently, most other distros die off and Microsoft practically become the sole producer of Linux systems, charging people for it and including many of their own proprietary components (in such way that anyone who doesn't use Microsoft Linux will suffer compatibility issues)
10. Other projects will not be able to sustain themselves due to dwindling numbers of users (as we've seen in practice, open-source software needs large numbers of users to be effective) and will become obsolete

Anyone who claims that this is unreasonable is naive. Microsoft's release of an open-source .NET for Linux is clearly a way to kill off Mono, Microsoft's contributions to the Visual Studio rival Eclipse is the first step in taking over Eclipse to either turn it into their own commercial product or kill it off, Microsoft's development of WSL (which they can keep completely proprietary since they developed it themselves) competes against Wine and VirtualBox, and the rest of the "Microsoft loves open source" hype is just a way to convince people that Microsoft really does care about releasing some of their source code when in reality it's just a way to lure people into developing for their proprietary core with the use of open-source development tools (that look more attractive to the untrained eye).

Sure, years-old documents that are irrelevant to their current strategy. Did you miss the part where Microsoft provides Linux support on Azure, and provides Linux cross-compiling and cross-debugging support in Visual Studio, without any extensions or "bloat" or lock-in? They let you install it yourself, they interoperate with whatever setup you want to debug. Those aren't the signs of "embrace-extend-extinguish," those are the signs of "embrace-oh-wait-I'm-not-wearing-a-tin-foil-hat" because they figured out a different strategy.

Hold the phone! Microsoft making WSL is bad because it's closed source, but Microsoft making .NET open source is also bad because it's open source!??

Let me ask you something, onlyonemac: how many years and products does Microsoft have not to embrace-extend-extinguish for you to accept anything they do as less than the devil's handiwork? Or are you just a religious zealot who will shift the goalposts anytime Microsoft changes, hating Microsoft just for the sake of hating Microsoft?

And for that matter, is it physically possible for you to accept that not everyone does or even needs to put software freedom as their number one priority? You keep spewing the FSF's talking points as if none of us have even thought about them, but perhaps we're not as ignorant as you think we are.

Honestly, this is not an argument worth having. Even with the example of the arch demon of years past, IBM, embracing Linux you will never convince a Linux bigot. They just do not look at the realities logically. Microsoft keep their products closed source - evil. Microsoft open source products - evil. Microsoft software is a heap of crap that is inferior in every way to Linux and yet - somehow - everyone wants to use Microsoft software. Clearly they must have made that midnight assignation at the Crossroads.

Never argue with a person with a closed mind; they will only take it as further proof that the whole world is a conspiracy against them.

In 1997, when companies were beginning to move from a whole-Microsoft stack to Linux on the front and back ends, yeah, Microsoft wanted to stop that. Any company suddenly faced with an existential threat would. It's not an evil Microsoft conspiracy to want to be a leader. That's the same thing the FSF wants. You can't honestly tell me that Richard Stallman doesn't want everyone to be using free GNU on their open-source MIPS workstations.

Of course, you are being unreasonable, onlyonemac. You are convinced this is a conspiracy to destroy Linux and open source. Irrationally so, as almost all conspiracy theorists are about their fear of reality.

People like you are the reason Linux got nowhere in the consumer world.

Hi,


But you pay with your freedom. Just like when using Google Mail. They provide you a free service, and they can lookup your mails. Nothing new.

But onlyonemac's theory just blows up my brain. That would not be even possible, because there are many users dedicated to Linux, unlike users who are only bashing Microsoft and Windows and getting nothing done. Still, there are many BSD variants, there are OSes that we develop ourselves (or with minor help from others on this forum)...

Please all, just stop this dispute and get back to coding. It's not worth the time to bash everyone who disagrees with you.


Regards,
glauxosdever

So, explain how you pay when using the free components of Azure.

No. The Azure thing is the lead-up to step 3 in my "10 steps for Microsoft to take over Linux", and is happening more concurrently to steps 1 and 2. And by supporting Linux in Visual Studio they're again trying to steer open-source-minded developers away from open-source tools and towards platforms that Microsoft can control.Microsoft making WSL as closed source is bad because it's Microsoft's foot in the door towards taking over the Linux market (by luring users away from true open-source Linux platforms and instead giving them a system based on a proprietary base that Microsoft can control). Microsoft making .NET open source is bad because it's Microsoft's way of luring users away from Mono and thus killing off Mono, leaving users with a .NET runtime that Microsoft can still effectively maintain full control over (despite it being open source).Perhaps they need to actually start not "embrace extend extinguish"ing products for a start. I still see that they are "embrace extend extinguish"ing things - why else would they contribute to a direct competitor of one of their own products, and support a rival operating system on their cloud hosting platform?This isn't about the FSF or software freedom (anymore). This is about users falling into Microsoft's set-up for taking over Linux and being naive enough to not realise it.

...many who will fall for Microsoft's argument and end up using WSL and ultimately buying Microsoft Linux.Are those going to keep up with Microsoft's fast-paced proprietary technologies? Heck, even LibreOffice can hardly keep up with the "open" .docx standard.

It's just proof that Microsoft have a way of controlling the industry. Everyone I know complains about how slow their computers are, while mine is plenty faster running Linux. Everyone complains about how Microsoft forces updates onto them (especially a problem with Windows 10), while my computer doesn't need as many updates, doesn't break when I install updates, and lets me choose which updates I want and when. Everyone complains about how Microsoft keep changing the interface in Windows and how inefficient that interface is, while my computer running Linux lets me customise the interface completely. People don't use Microsoft software because it's good; people use Microsoft software because people say "I'd rather choose a brand name that I'm paying good money for than some free thing that I've never heard of" and because Microsoft develop software that is incompatible with everything else and push that software in their customer's faces so everyone has to use it if they want their computers to be fully compatible with everyone else's computers.

What exactly is the difference between open source code written by Microsoft and open source code written by anyone else? You have the exact same freedoms, and large corporations giving their users those freedoms is exactly what Stallman wants.

...that's not "embrace, extend, extinguish." That's "embrace" without "extend" or "extinguish." Ye old triple-E was when they embraced a standard (like, say, HTML), extended the standard incompatibly (like, say, with IE6), and then when everyone started using their incompatible stuff the compliant versions were extinguished (like, say, Netscape). Contributing to their "direct competitors" (with Azure hosting and open-source .NET) is the exact opposite of that.

Now, you could argue that WSL and Visual Studio might start doing that, but I doubt they will, because the point of WSL is to make it easier to write software to run on Azure and embedded systems, where you're not using WSL but plain-vanilla Linux. If Microsoft starts adding proprietary extensions, you'd have a point, but they haven't done that in ages and show every sign of contributing the source to any "extensions", so for now you have nothing to complain about.

And I also note that you dodged my question. You're just digging yourself deeper in your conspiracy-nut hole, unless you can give us some real criteria for when you'd no longer consider Microsoft's literal every move evil by default.

That's the first correct thing that you have said in this thread. Microsoft do indeed have a way of controlling the industry, and it's no big secret; they write software that is better suited to the requirements of corporations than anyone else does. Business isn't concerned with who wrote the software, what their motives were, and how much it costs. They just want software that does the job.

They want to be able to retain control over the computers in their organization, not have them individually configured so that they are all different, and they certainly don't want users installing any old software on their computers. They also want to be able to delegate control of various parts of the organization to individual administrators. Hence Active Directory, with Group Policies, that provides a level of control, configurability and - perhaps most important - security that a Linux installation cannot hope to emulate. Until Linux can provide those sort of facilities to network administrators it has no desktop role in business.

That's why corporations buy Microsoft software. No big secret, no conspiracy, just good software that does the required job. Forget what geeky friends tell you; they may, indeed, have ill-configured Windows installations that run slowly; give users Linux and they can easily make it run just as slowly. But these geeks know nothing about business computing.

And that's why you will find Linux in organizations in a different role. It's great for running web servers, for example, where you don't need that level of control over the user because the user is the administrator. Each operating system has it's place in the business world; the desktop is not the place for Linux. I say this after twenty-odd years experience running Windows servers and desktops, and Linux and FreeBSD servers, in a sizeable multinational corporation.

No they do not. My college, for example, has an IT system that is again always very slow and doesn't work properly half the time, and I could solve all of it's problems by using Linux. My mother's office just got a new IT installation and every time they reboot the computers all their desktop icons vanish, because the icons are loaded from network storage except that the network connection isn't ready by the time the desktop manager tries to load the icons.I'm not a business network administrator but I do know that it is possible to configure Linux systems in similar ways to what you describe. ACLs, sudo, UNIX groups, and so on all provide facilities to configure multiple "levels of access" in a secure manner, and I have utilised many of these tools myself on occasion.This isn't about how slowly users can make a system run; this is about how my mother's Windows computer that she bought two years ago and has installed literally nothing except Windows updates on since it left the factory (it included Microsoft Office) takes forever just to load a webpage, thrashes its hard drive non-stop, and exhibits the svchost.exe issue that I described earlier. Conversely, my three-year-old Linux system still works just as well as it did when I first installed it, and I've done plenty of software installations and configurations on there.

So, what experience do you have of deploying a network across three continents with thousands of desktop clients and hundreds of servers? Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

No, you're not. What you think you know is worthless. I doubt that you even know what Group Policies are or how Active Directory works in practice.