

Microsoft contributes a lot of changes to Linux kernel 3.0 - yarapavan
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-contributes-a-lot-of-changes-to-Linux-kernel-3-0-1280528.html

======
kprobst
While I would agree (and some would make the point) that Microsoft does this
to benefit mostly Microsoft, it's still GPL'ed code that is now part of the
greater Linux kernel codebase, so good on them and everyone else.

~~~
scrame
> Microsoft does this to benefit mostly Microsoft

Well, of course. I would wager all the corporate contributions, and a good
chunk of the independent contributions are contributing to add features they
need.

I agree, though, good on them for contributing, and even better for making a
substantial contribution, instead of a token gesture.

The irony is, there is a benefit to Microsoft for working with open source: if
dosbox and wine become good enough to support their legacy software, they can
end-of-life a large portion of their compatability codebase that they drag
along with each version, and keep the compatability effort to a stable, free
platform written for that purpose.

~~~
jbellis
They don't need dosbox/wine -- "XP mode" in windows 7 is XP running in a
virtualized environment.

~~~
inportb
Ah, but how does that replace DOSBox? iirc, Windows XP does not support real
mode DOS software.

~~~
wtallis
It does. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine>

NTVDM is unavailable in 64-bit Windows, but XP Mode uses 32-bit XP, so it can
be used to run DOS software. (Though there will be trouble if you try to use
it to run DOS games.)

~~~
inportb
NTVDM is useful, but only for the most basic software. For example, many
programs do not work on NTVDM because of the limited audio and video support.
You mentioned games, and I believe some of them suffer from timing issues
(though this may be the games' fault for relying on a specific clock frequency
for timing).

I'd say it's just good enough for the most useful 16-bit Microsoft utilities.

~~~
wtallis
I've seen the entire suite of DOS Borland C++ developer tools run under NTVDM,
and other non-trivial, useful stuff, like Lotus Magellan.

I've also seen some quite trivial programs fail completely in DOSBox due to
imperfect compatibility.

------
dave1010uk
Looking at the stats, it's interesting the Google are so low (1.4% of
changesets) when they do so much work on both Android and Chrome OS. Does
their work not go upstream?

It's also interesting that Nokia are at 1.8% of changesets when Elop siad they
weren't producing any more MeeGo phones.

Is most work that goes into Linux now just adding drivers for new hardware? Or
are there ineresting new kernel features that people are working on?

~~~
duskwuff
> Does [Google's] work not go upstream?

A lot of it doesn't, actually. Many of the Android patches are pretty
intrusive, and wouldn't necessarily be suitable for integration into the
mainline kernel -- for instance, the Android permissions model depends on a
bunch of these kernel patches.

~~~
rlpb
I'm pretty sure that they'd ultimately accept kernel patches for the actual
end-to-end functionality that Android needs, but there would be a lot of
debate and probably considerable engineering changes to kernel interfaces
needed first.

In practice, Android development seems to be more focused on shipping rather
than on code quality, accruing technical debt in the process. To be fair to
them, it's a project that is really an entire Linux distribution, requires
lots of components written from scratch and not used anywhere else, and
they're under massive pressure to keep up with the competition.

~~~
dave1010uk
It seems a shame than Android is so different from standard Linux
distributions and doesn't really use any of the normal Linux stack. It would
be really cool if Android was more "Linux" than just the kernel (like Web OS &
MeeGo are).

~~~
eropple
If it was, they wouldn't have the tight integration that makes Android vastly
more viable than MeeGo.

~~~
sciurus
What does that mean, exactly?

------
ge0rg
This is interesting in the context of Microsoft patent-trolling companies
which deploy Linux (TomTom, Android OEMs).

Is it possible these patches introduce more patent mines into the Linux
source?

Or is there a legal hook to prevent Microsoft from trolling after they (even
when only represented by a single employee) participated in the development?
(I wish there was, but I fear the answer will be "no")

------
rythie
Original LWN article: <http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/451243/060f24c5b1202513/>

------
KonradKlause
They only thing they are contributing is their hv driver to make Linux run on
Mircosoft HyperV. HyperV has to support Linux. And the major hv developer is a
former Novell employee.

~~~
darklajid
While this is true (at least the part I can verify, no idea about personal
things here), I'm genuinely curious why you want to point this out?

The article says the same thing (contributing to the HyperV driver). Why is
the job history of this guy of interest?

~~~
KonradKlause
Because it's not Microsoft who is contributing. They just paying Linux Kernel
developers to build a driver for their HyperV. So, Microsoft does not
contribute to Linux. They make it just run on HyperV because some customers
need this "feature".

~~~
StrawberryFrog
> Because it's not Microsoft who is contributing. They just paying Linux
> Kernel developers

So it's Microsoft employees as directed by their managers ... but not
Microsoft? What is the distinction.

~~~
eropple
The distinction is "He doesn't like Microsoft, so he must attack and minimize
their contributions to feel better."

