Microsoft goes Linux

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View

Microsoft goes Linux:
 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-oracle-software-idUSKCN0W92AP

Win 11 will be Ubuntu based?
 Expect: Microsoft buys Ubuntu for 10 billion.



Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 09:08, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Microsoft has several divisions and groups.  One of these makes a rather
popular and profitable database server, MS SQL Server.  They expect to
become more popular and more profitable if their server software runs on
the most popular server OS, rather than being restricted to a single OS.
 That sounds like a perfectly reasonable business strategy, seen from
the viewpoint of the group that handles the SQL Server software.

It is a brave move by the MS management, however, as it undermines their
Windows server marketing.  Is a license of MS SQL Server on Linux an
extra sale for SQL Server - or is it a lost sale of Windows server?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.


No.


If SQL Server on Linux goes well, you can expect to see Exchange Server
or other backend server software supporting Linux.  We may even see MS
Office for Linux desktop at some point.  But Windows is not going to
become Linux-based.


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On a sunny day (Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:05:42 +0100) it happened David Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Microsoft Linux!

It is said, that those who criticize Unix are bound to re-invent it.
Microsoft Linux would be an addition..
Of course it will be incompatible with  everything else out there ;-)
Just like rathead.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 13:16, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah, well, what more proof do we need for our fortune-telling?
/Somebody/ said it, so surely it is merely a matter of time before it
comes true.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Obviously it would be an additional choice, if such a thing were to exist.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

In the unlikely event that MS releases their own version of Linux, or
the even more unlikely event that they do so for the desktop rather than
the server, their prime motivation would have to be compatibility with
both Windows programs and Linux software.  Anything else would be
pointless.  And while Microsoft may be many things, they are not stupid.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

?


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 13:31, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is sometimes forgotten that the most commercially successful
Unix of the 1980, i.e. Xenix, was made and sold by..... Microsoft.


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 14:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know that (though I never used it).  But the computing world today is
somewhat different from the 1980's, so I don't see Xenix as particularly
relevant except historically.


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 14:50, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Until the last month, would have disagreed slightly,
since it was sold to SCO - and we know what boon that
has been to the lawyers!


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:56:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

Quoted text here. Click to load it


The Unix v7 code was licensed from AT&T by Microsoft.  In turn,
Microsoft sold Xenix licenses to SCO, IBM, Tandy, Altos, and a bunch
of others.  Microsoft also sold a version of Xenix.  The tangled
history is at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix#History
In about 1987, Microsoft sold ownership of Xenix to SCO, in trade for
25% ownership of SCO.    SCO tried desperately to kill Xenix but
failed because it was the ideal text based applications platform of
the time.  SCO finally managed to mostly kill it in about 1995.
However, until about 2010, I was still servicing Xenix customers.  I
also know of some rather important applications currently running on
Xenix.  It's really difficult to kill something that works well.

At various time, Microsoft has declared war on Unix and it's
mutations.  The strategy is always embrace, extend, extinguish:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
There have been emulators, VM's, developers tools, guest operating
systems, and courseware.  I just found "Essentials of Windows for Unix
Developers" by Microsoft.  It includes a 180 day trial of Windoze
Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and a CD full of powerpoint slides.  I
think they were expecting Unix developers to jump ship to Windoze
after running Server 2003 for a while.  It didn't happen.  

Plenty more experiments which tried to bring Unix and Windoze
together, such as Java based Tarantella:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantella,_Inc .>
We've come a long way since then.

Drivel:  Unix timeline:
<http://www.levenez.com/unix/


--  
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 12/03/16 14:21, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The public story is incomplete - I'm not sure whether what I'm about
to say has ever been publicly acknowledged, but I knew the people
involved.

Around 1986-7, Hewlett-Packard and SCO approached Microsoft to
license the Windows source code, intending to translate the assembler
code parts to make the whole thing portable, and to provide back-end
rendering to the X Window System. Windows would become a graphical
windowing environment for Unix systems. An *application*, not reliant
on MS-DOS or its successors.

The cost of rewriting was predicated on an evaluation of the code
quality - conducted by inspecting samples and computing various
metrics like comment density - and on Microsoft's own measures of
the number of lines of code. The code examples inspected were not
too bad, and the size was quoted as 200,000 lines of code excluding
comments. On that basis, HP and SCO went ahead with the deal, and
the code was delivered.

It didn't take very long before it became obvious that the code samples
were not typical, and the quality - especially the comment density -
was seriously worse. But what really killed the deal was the size.
There was 480,000 lines of this crappy assembler code, and HP baulked
at the cost of rewriting it. The whole deal was off.

If they had decided to renegotiate and to bite the bullet, there
would probably never have been an OS/2 nor a Windows NT, XP, and
their successors. Microsoft would not have an operating system of
their own, but would be a desktop and applications company on an
open platform (assuming that they could have survived that).

Which seems to be where they're going now... that they're having
trouble even *giving away* their operating system.

The Hewlett Packard division involved was the one producing X Windows
software including the HP Widget toolkit (and later, OSF/Motif) at
the same site where the calculators were made, in Corvallis, Oregon.
They also made the inkjet printers there.

Perhaps someone who worked there at the time would like to chime in
and correct or augment details of this story? I heard all this from
Bob Miller, project manager for OSF/Motif, in 1989.

Clifford Heath.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:44:07 +1100, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is the first time I've heard this story.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's odd.  Windoze 1.0 was release in late 1985.  During the next
few years, MS introduce later versions of Windoze, OS/2, various
productivity apps, and did an IPO.  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft#1985.E2.80.931991:_The_rise_and_fall_of_OS.2F2
I find it very difficult to believe that MS would even consider
licensing source code in the middle of a spectacular period of growth,
to what could easily be recognized as potentially a competing product.
However, it is consistent with the way SCO operated.  Almost
everything in the SCO products was licensed from and not written by
SCO.  Are you sure about the 1986-87 dates?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I was on the borderline of SCO and HP during this period.  I don't see
how SCO and HP could collaborate on anything.  For example, the HPNP
printer driver in ODT and OSR5 was written by someone at HP.  When
bugs were found, SCO demanded that HP fix them.  HP's attitude was
that HP wrote it for SCO, so now it's SCO's problem.  I had to write
some workarounds.  For example:
<http://news-posts.aplawrence.com/935.html
I don't see how these two companies could have collaborated on
anything.  However, the Microsoft part might be possible.  The pres of
Microsoft at the time was Jon Shirley, who would probably have sold
the company crown jewels if he thought it would generate revenue.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That was probably the first time that happened.  The repeat
performance happened again in 1998 with SCO, IBM, and Sequent in
Project Monterey:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Monterey
Everyone had a different idea of what they were trying to accomplish,
what they had to work with, and what they were expected to do.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe.  If true, then MS would have not had a reason to sell Xenix to
SCO in 1987 and would have probably built Windoze on top of Xenix to
compete with their former collaborators.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's not too difficult to see which way MS is heading.  Nadella came
from the Azure cloud (software as a service) division of Microsoft.
He's pushing the company and customers (kicking and screaming) in a
direction where we rent all our software from Microsoft (pay by the
month or whatever).  MS is intentionally not giving away the OS
because we'll soon not be able to own our own OS but instead pay
monthly fees for its use.  One area where this has already happened is
in corporate server farms.  These were formerly owned by the
corporations and maintained by their IT staffs.  Today, the entire
network is virtualized in the cloud, and the IT function is provided
by an offshore service company.  To the corporation, this is better
because it's cheaper.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks for the info and detail.  I'll send this to some of the former
SCO people and see what they can add.

--  
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 14/03/16 10:51, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was not all all obvious that Windows would become so important,
and they knew they needed a new operating system platform for it anyhow.
So it does make some sense to me - depending on the licensing terms.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, not entirely. I visited the Corvallis operation in 1989. It may
have been recent, but I got the impression it was some time before
that. If it was late 1988/early 1989, would that make more sense?

The HP operation I was in, the Australian Software Operation, was
seeking corporate charter agreements to commercialise the cross-
platform development tools for user interfaces which I had been
working on since 1987, which implemented my inventions from back
as far as 1983. Some of those inventions later found their way
into the modern web browser, courtesy of a friend from there who
later worked at Netscape. But that was after HP had closed the ASO
in 1990, and we bought the UIMS technology and founded OSA to bring
it to market. Some of that team are still working together!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

HP divisions operated almost like separate companies. Just because
the relationship was dysfunctional in one area says nothing about
other areas. There was very little central coordination or management,
and the kind of charter war we engaged in was new to the company,
because the idea that one division should own a market segment (and
not suffer competition from another division) was new. I circled
the globe twice in a year, getting these agreements in place.
Then we got shut down; the only profitable software-only operation
that HP *had ever had*, and Australia's largest exporter of software.
HP decided it was a hardware company, just at the time that "open
systems" meant that hardware was commoditized. Buy SUN, buy IBM,
buy HP, it didn't matter because it was all Unix. Bloody idiots,
the bad management decisions rapidly escalated to Fiorina-scale,
and we all know how that ended.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Windows was certainly not (yet) considered crown jewels, and they
were looking for an O/S path forward. Rightly so, given that it took
them more than a decade to get NT to where it could be used to launch
a compatible replacement for MSDOS and Windows.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I hadn't heard about Monterey, but that happened well after Pyramid
had built a fantastic SMP Unix kernel. Those machines didn't have
terribly fast cores, but they scaled almost linearly to 24 cores,
and provided primitives that made the new RDBMS products fly.
In fact, it was Pyramid's work - specifically the kernel profiling
of RDBMS behaviour done by Ken McDonnell - and collaboration with
the RDBMS vendors, that drove the shakeout in that market; the
products rapidly converged on optimum behaviour (locks, disk
transfers, etc) for the TP benchmarks. Vendors which didn't take
Pyramid's advice rapidly vanished because they were uncompetitive.

Anyhow, my point was that a lot of folk had tried to hack SMP support
into Unix, but they all (except Pyramid) tried to do it on-the-cheap,
and that meant way too many global locks and poor scaling. I don't
know why Pyramid succeeded, but I suspect the focus on RDBMS product
behaviour gave them a rich source of expectations.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was definitely after the Xenix sale. But "building Windoze on top
of Xenix" was their goal; they just wanted it done by experts in
Unix and X. SCO had the Xenix license, but lacked the X Windows
expertise that HP Corvallis had.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'd be curious to learn more, or to communicate with Bob Miller again.
Not an easy name to track down, of course!

With some digging, I might even be able to find my email from the time.

Clifford Heath.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:44:07 +1100, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That amount of assembly lines seems to be quite high, since Win NT
3.51 was available, for Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC and x86. When supporting
multiple platforms, you really try to minimize the amount of assembly
code needed.


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 14/03/16 16:57, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

NT 3.1 was the first release, in 1993, with 3.51 not until 1995.
A long time after the events I'm talking about, and it
was *new techology* after all.

I don't know how much of the 480K lines was support applications,
but I suspect rather a lot. HP/SCO should have taken the path of
rewriting those to a clean design, rather than trying to mimic
the original versions, which were crap anyhow. They'd have got
apps twice as good in half the time.

Clifford Heath.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On a sunny day (Tue, 08 Mar 2016 14:31:24 +0100) it happened David Brown

Panteltje wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You seem clueless, I have been with Unix since when was it 1979?
The people who know it made that statement.
And they are / were right.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Their prime motive would be profit.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Profit works, anything else is obama crowd.
  


Quoted text here. Click to load it


That is the most stupid statement I have read in well, when was the big bang?
Anyways, take one look at any MS windows version, it is obvious they are stupid,
even stupid to the point they do not understand selling something that really works is a better strategy,

It is (MS windows) for idiots by idiots.
Just like those who cannot read and write and only click on pictures.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your question mark has been noted.
4 u to figure it out.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 14:02:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  What a retarded crack, from the SED utter retard.

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On 08/03/16 15:02, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Eh, no.

As a general point, it seems that many of the design decisions of early
Unix were remarkably successful, and have scaled well across a wide
range of uses.  Other systems, such as Windows, have copied a good
number of features from the *nix world over the years (but note also
that the *nix world has copied from others too).

The old saying is - like all old sayings - an exaggeration compressed
into a pithy remark.  It is not supposed to be taken literally, or
considered as some sort of holy prophecy.

And in particular, it does /not/ mean that Microsoft will build Windows
11 on Linux!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK, but they make profit by selling systems - a MS Linux would only sell
if it were compatible with existing software.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, isn't it amazing how big and profitable MS is despite being idiots?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On a sunny day (Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:59:35 +0100) it happened David Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

From the OS POV windows was based on MSDOS and that filesystem was a cheap hack of CP/M, with features removed.
It got much worse when they integrated that shit into the GUI and browser (win 98 and up).
And that mess was a dead end by design.
That they keep their customers hostage with 'upgrades'
automatic as well and needs a sticker on their PC,
what an annoying sad bunch of crap programmers, what a bloat, what a stupidity, Microsoft.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK maybe win12 then :-)
They have no choice.
Remember, the reality of it:
Every embedded system I have hare runs : Linux.
Robot vacuum cleaner, Linksys WiFi access points, Samsung TV, Humax cable receiver etc etc,
Linux is everywhere.
Whole continents have moved to Linux, and then there is Android (I do not like that) but it  
is a fierce competition to Win10 crap.
The cheap Pipo boxes are dual boot Android Linux.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are not good at Profit anymore, Billy The Gates was,
but now with Balmer send away it is a the mercy of investors who will likely rip it apart.
Look at the stupidity with Nokia, they destroyed that company,
now look at what they did with that money and knowledge: No body buys windows phones.
It is either Samsung or Apple, and Apple is insecure and supports terrorists,
that leaves Samsung with AMOLED displays and Android, and  some Chinese makes (Note Jobs is no more).

So MS is dead, I was reading today a big ad by the Billy the Gates foundation aimed at high school pupils
to 'change the world', he (Billy) has the money.
 https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id02%_22_2016_20_AL2016_BG-OB_&WT.tsrc=BGOB
He probably sold those MS shares ;-)

He DID change the world, do computahs save time? NO, they waste time.
Instead of doing real tronix people play with slimulations, do not know what end a of a soldering iron to hold on to,
or not to burn their fingers on hot coils.
What we really need now is screens with components that smoke and get hot!
THERE is a market.

So Billy no, he is not gonna change the world.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think I mentioned a few things that show it is.
MS windows being the real proof and evidence.


  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What was that energy company, it was big too, so was the Roman empire.
Dinos were big too.
Mosquitos won.


Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:59:42 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
n
ist.
an
 bang?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e stupid,
really works is a better strategy,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Natural monopolies get bigger and more powerful once they've made themselve
s natural monopolies. IBM didn't foresee how big the market for personal co
mputers was going to be, otherwise they would never have sub-contracted the
 operating system to Bill Gates. When the penny dropped they got to work on
 OS/2, but it was too little, too late.

Bill Gates made some clever decisions early in the process, and IBM made so
me dumb ones, but since then all Microsoft has had to do is to hang onto it
's natural monopoly. It's starting to look as if Linux is powerful enough,  
and sufficiently easy to use, to eventually drive Microsoft out of the mark
et, but it's going to take quite a while.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oracle made that decision 20 years ago.
Probably Microsoft watched how that went en decided that it was better
to do this as well.
Of course, it remains to be seen if they launch a "Microsoft Linux"
as the preferred base to run it on, or support some existing distribution.

I expect it will only be supported on an "enterprise class" Linux.
(which is the same thing as a normal version, but with a pricey
support contract attached)

Re: Microsoft goes Linux
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:08:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Bullshit.  They are not worth that much...  at all.

 And MS would make their own Linux based offering.  They do not need
Ubuntu.

Site Timeline