Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Microsoft's Lessons Learned From Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Say what?

    Oh, I get it -- so the digital signatures signed off by Microsoft on the VirtualBox and VMware drivers are, what? Hacks employed by fortune-500 companies (Oracle and VMware) to get around Microsoft restrictions?

    Come on now, Q, think. Microsoft intentionally allows its direct competitors to install kernel modules into the Windows kernel to do virtualization better than Microsoft's own product can. And they like this. From their point of view, they can't complain -- they're still getting the Windows licenses either way.
    you mean the closed source "Virtualbox" version and the cloused source VMware...

    show me a opensource version with windows kernel "modules"

    there are no "digital signatures signed off by microsoft" so allow the freedom of "opensource/free software"

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    show me a opensource version with windows kernel "modules"

    there are no "digital signatures signed off by microsoft" so allow the freedom of "opensource/free software"
    Take a look here:
    http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/...text=&chbtext=
    [RANT]
    It would be nice though if this drivers came bundled with Windows so I didn't have to provide "floppy disk" with the drivers at install time
    [/RANT]
    Last edited by Ansla; 03-30-2012 at 08:33 AM. Reason: Add rant

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are right ... but this "kernel" driver is in fact for "microsoft" and not for linux.
    This is absolutely right, they wrote it so that HyperV could theoretically compete with XenServer and ESX(i).

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    this means it would be better if the linux people don't work together with microsoft.
    This is where your tin foil hat shows... Its worth getting their virtualization drivers into the kernel regardless. The kernel devs were surprised (to say the least) seeing Microsoft trying to make commits but didn't really give them the time of day at first. Their drivers were horribly written and didn't even conform to the ABI at first, so why would a kernel dev entertain such a request?

    Here's the funny part: At this point, Microsoft first went back to its customers and said they can't implement these changes _because_ of the kernel developers ("Its their fault they rejected our code!"). The customers ultimately didn't care, Microsoft pushed back saying they were trying, etc.... the kernel devs just didn't give a shit about Microsoft's release schedule. Afterall, why care? It wasn't their problem. Today, you see maintainable HyperV drivers in mainline, done by Microsoft under the GPL. This isn't even 10 years after they called the GPL a "virus that threatens intellectual property".

    Can you seriously imagine how red in the face Ballmer got when he realized that Microsoft would have to officially support Linux in some form to get their most wanted customers? And had to use the GPL to do it?

    Shit like this gives me hope for tomorrow.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kazetsukai View Post
    Can you seriously imagine how red in the face Ballmer got when he realized that Microsoft would have to officially support Linux in some form to get their most wanted customers? And had to use the GPL to do it?
    Shit like this gives me hope for tomorrow.
    You know, do you? That eselons don't care about things like that (they underlings takes care sh*t they left). They went to podium, they talk bullshit, and they forgot about it! I bet my 0.2 cents he (Ballmer) don't remember anymore that he ever said that word.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s. View Post
    You know, do you? That eselons don't care about things like that (they underlings takes care sh*t they left). They went to podium, they talk bullshit, and they forgot about it! I bet my 0.2 cents he (Ballmer) don't remember anymore that he ever said that word.
    you are so right these people donít give shit about yesterdays talking.

    business as usual

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kazetsukai View Post
    Can you seriously imagine how red in the face Ballmer got when he realized that Microsoft would have to officially support Linux in some form to get their most wanted customers? And had to use the GPL to do it?
    Can you imagine how little Ballmer gives a shit, because he's the CEO of a billions-dollars-per-year multi-national company with around 100,000 employees and around a hundred-subdivisions that all do tons of shit without him needing or even wanting to know about all the goofy little technical details, like how many of their programmers use GPL software like Cygwin and even Linux boxes when building the massive and comprehensive test farms that make modern Windows as rock-solid and relatively bug-free as they are compared to the hobbyist desktop OSes built on Linux?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Can you imagine how little Ballmer gives a shit, because he's the CEO of a billions-dollars-per-year multi-national company with around 100,000 employees and around a hundred-subdivisions that all do tons of shit without him needing or even wanting to know about all the goofy little technical details, like how many of their programmers use GPL software like Cygwin and even Linux boxes when building the massive and comprehensive test farms that make modern Windows as rock-solid and relatively bug-free as they are compared to the hobbyist desktop OSes built on Linux?
    Can you imagine how little I give shit about Ballmer?? No you cant.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Can you imagine how little Ballmer gives a shit, because he's the CEO of a billions-dollars-per-year multi-national company with around 100,000 employees and around a hundred-subdivisions that all do tons of shit without him needing or even wanting to know about all the goofy little technical details, like how many of their programmers use GPL software like Cygwin and even Linux boxes when building the massive and comprehensive test farms that make modern Windows as rock-solid and relatively bug-free as they are compared to the hobbyist desktop OSes built on Linux?
    Winblows fanboy attacks! Winblows is so solid and bug free that is replaced by Linux everywhere where possible (when you're not in vendor trap). Winblows prove it's "solidness" in Wall Street exchange and it has also proven being "bug free" on millions computers affected by such simple thing like desktop icons being vulnerable! On the other side there are solid, bug free and fast Debian, RHEL and other enterprise Linux distributions. You've got just words like always and the facts aren't with you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •