
The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux - argorain
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-truth-comes-out-microsoft-needs-linux/
======
ctvo
There is a large group of people on the internet who never let the Microsoft
of the 90s go.

How does every single one of their business decisions get linked to some
nefarious goal? The author doesn't even know what it could be, BUT DON'T
FORGET! This company tried to patent everything decades ago! Don't forget
they're not bringing bash to Windows out of the goodness in their hearts!

~~~
vhab
There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theories going on, on what I personally
believe to be a really straight forward and logical reaction.

From my perspective, "Bash on Windows" is a reaction to the wide adoption of
OSX for development (In particularly web development seemed to have a mass
migration).

For obligatory anecdote:

I'm a longtime and loyal Windows user. Windows has been my primary development
platform even though parts or all of our stack ran on some flavor of -nix.
I've always encouraged my team to do the same, primary motivated by the better
UX on Windows.

But, like many in the past few years, I jumped the OSX bandwagon and moved the
entire department over. This wasn't a fun transition, and came with many
pains. But ultimately it was a necessary transition as the tools we needed
just weren't supported on Windows.

Development became more complex, tooling became mandatory at every stage of
development and only OSX offered us a reasonable balance between a -nix-like
environment that ran the tools with decent UX.

Microsoft's move to bring Bash to Windows will likely motivate me to migrate
back in due time.

While some may be spinning conspiracy theories, I'm personally just really
glad Microsoft is moving in this direction.

~~~
larrik
You talk like developing on Linux means doing everything in the command line.
*nix UX is nothing to be ashamed of, and I personally prefer it over Windows
and OS X (especially OS X).

~~~
swsieber
Personally, the reason I like OS X over a random linux distribution is the
sane keyboard shortcut defaults - CMD+C and CMD+V just work everywhere, as
well as things like CMD+W.

Well, almost everywhere. And CTRL+F is still a little wonky depending on the
app you're in.

~~~
pessimizer
Where on Linux do Ctrl-c, v, and x not work? I haven't had a problem with them
anywhere in a decade. I have largely stuck to Gnome2, MATE, and XFCE, though.

~~~
ninkendo
The problem with Ctrl C is that it is also the shortcut for SIGINT when the
terminal is focused.

Also most terminal emulators will forward all Ctrl combinations directly over
the TTY rather than capturing them in the windowing system, so in practice
Ctrl-V rarely works in a terminal either. Likewise for Ctrl-W, which is
typically bound to backwards-kill-word, etc.

The way it ends up in practice, shortcuts involving the Command key on OSX end
up being clearly defined and consistent, because apps typically can't override
them.

------
mikegerwitz
The author quoted Shuttleworth:

> The native availability of a full Ubuntu environment on Windows, without
> virtualization or emulation, is a milestone that defies convention and a
> gateway to fascinatingly unfamiliar territory.

"Ubuntu environment" is the key there. Microsoft doesn't need "Linux" unless
they're planning on replacing their own kernel with it. Microsoft here is
depending on the software running atop of the kernel: in this case, the GNU
operating system---which is more than just a set of GNU programs[0]---which
brings all of this software together.

Granted, all the talk has been primarily about GNU Bash and other GNU
software.[1]

Yes, they're running software compiled for the kernel Linux by providing
translating system calls; they could also do that for any other kernel that
hackers want to compile their software for, should it become immensely
popular. But the rest of the Unix stuff is separate.

[0]: [https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html](https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html)

[1]: [https://www.gnu.org/software/](https://www.gnu.org/software/)

~~~
eterm
If we end up with fully comatible gnu/linux and gnu/windows, that's still
awesome, maybe even better than ending up with only linux variants.

~~~
pjc50
Not if it's harmful to the development of a fully Free ecosystem. Unless
Windows becomes fully Free - which would be a huge, unprecedented change - its
users are forced to accept whatever compromises Microsoft makes on their
behalf.

------
theboywho
GNU is like Leonardo DiCaprio few years ago; never getting the Oscar.
Microsoft did not bring Linux to Windows, it brought GNU. Linux is a kernel
and there is not even a single bit of it in what microsoft brought to windows.
It's technically GNU/Windows.

~~~
stormbrew
No. Just no. GNU on Windows has existed for a long time in several forms, for
one thing. For another, by bringing a compatibility layer for the Linux kernel
they have opened the door to much more than just GNU, and it remains
incredibly reductivist to claim that that's all the Linux kernel does. You can
use the Linux kernel (or this linux-compatible layer) to use a GNU system or a
completely non-GNU system if you so choose.

What they bring by default as a user-land is Ubuntu, which is actually a
complete OS that happens to include both GNU and Linux and many many other
things, including essential components that are not part of either project. I
say _actually_ a complete OS because, in spite of RMS' protestations to the
contrary in the famous "It's GNU/Linux, stupid!" editorial, the GNU system was
not "almost finished" when the Linux kernel came along and is still not
"almost finished" even today.

And the reason it's not almost finished is because the GNU project considers
the kernel unimportant, which they prove wrong every year HURD remains a mess
that moves forward with the pace of a snail.

~~~
theboywho
You are wrong in so many ways. First of all, you are confusing "Microsoft
bringing GNU to Windows" with "this is the first time GNU is brought to
Windows." Then you go on to make it seem like if the GNU/Linux debate is just
the craziness of some guy called RMS: wrong, many people support this
distinction. Then you go off-topic talking about why GNU hurd is a mess. None
of this contributes to the key topic here: Microsoft only brought GNU, not
Linux and not Ubuntu. A topic where you were wrong again. Please read
[https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-
kWindows](https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-kWindows)

~~~
Delmania
> many people support this distinction

Really? Maybe I travel in the wrong circles, but most of the time this comes
up most people just roll their eyes.

Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so
miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-
controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care
because it works.

~~~
mikegerwitz
> Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so
> miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-
> controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't
> care because it works.

These users do not value freedom. And that's their right, however much we
disagree with it.

It doesn't make those statements false, and doesn't change the situation. I
wrote that article to focus on software freedom, its purpose, and GNU.

We don't ignore the fact that "most people don't care because it works"; that
doesn't make sense, because that works against our ideals.

~~~
Delmania
I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people
view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The
concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good
reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on
providing a better user experience for non technical people.

The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter the claims, when
the term free is applied to a product (or product class) like software, the
immediate implication that the price is free. The "free as in free speech"
doesn't work too well because speech is not a product. Also, Windows doesn't
exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents
that would be considered subversive.

Telling people that Windows takes away their right to view and modify the
source code will at best give lukewarm response, because most people have
other concerns.

~~~
mikegerwitz
> I suspect those users do care about freedom.

I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear.

> The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a
> better user experience for non technical people.

There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very
specific reasons---ideology is essential.

> The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a
> product

I don't follow.

By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in
freedom".

> Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities,
> like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

You're not setting a very high bar there ;)

~~~
rmsrmsrms
> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as
> in freedom".

If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

~~~
mikegerwitz
> If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms:

    
    
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    

It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter
what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the
program are met, and that all derivative works are also free. This hack on
copyright is called Copyleft, and it uses copyright to grant rights _back_ to
the user.

    
    
      https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
    

Copyright needs to be used because, in many countries, works are proprietary
by default; there is no choice; in the US, if you do not explicitly grant
rights to others, then all rights are reserved.

~~~
rmsrmsrms
If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you
need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from
this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a
permissive license.

I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity.
Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want
to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright
in practice is to use a permissive license.

~~~
belorn
I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract
to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and
technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL.

I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the
GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire
to abolish copyright but still prefer permissive licenses.

~~~
rmsrmsrms
It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And
signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could
just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you
agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my
changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as
3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue over IP.

The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized
worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software
patents in there, those are stupid.

~~~
belorn
The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said
you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to
keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate,
cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on.

If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue.
All it does is to write down that specific aspect into an enforceable
contract. Contract don't need to use men with guns if everyone choose to honor
it, which was the historically method used back when people lived in tribes
and villages made out of a handful houses. No one would dare to break their
word, risking that others would start to do the same.

~~~
rmsrmsrms
Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman.
Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll
just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright
in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all
that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

~~~
belorn
A deal is a deal. If you want to retain the option to change your mind and sue
people over IP, then that is your decision. I won't be enabling that kind of
behavior, nor will I donate code to it.

The best option would of course be that the law was changed and IP abolished
by political change. Copyleft and permissive licenses would go away, artist
could stand on the shoulders of giants without fear, and compensation would be
addressed before the art was made rather than afterward. A fitting end to the
flame wars.

------
zymhan
Did the author post this having entirely ignored all of the news and
discussion about this last week?

This just seems like a seriously tardy "me-too" piece.

~~~
dave2000
There's just no content in that article at all.

------
CyanLite2
Ubuntu on Windows does more to destroy OS X. It's about developers choosing
Macbooks over Surface Tablets and traditional laptops with a Win10 license.

If you're an enterprise running SQL Server now on Windows. You're not going to
ditch your cluster to have it re-installed on Linux just to save a couple
dollars on an OS license. But if you're a newbie developer fresh out of
college and been doing development in a Unix-style environment (because they
bought a Macbook instead of a Win8 laptop four years ago), you've probably
never been exposed to a Microsoft development environment. These efforts are
to capture the next generation of developers who haven't ever touched a
Windows desktop and feel comfortable with writing Python on Linux and using
MySQL or Oracle. Want proof? Quick, name one unicorn startup who has a
Microsoft technology stack. Heck, just name anybody that's using a Microsoft
development stack in Silicon Valley...

Now those developers can be targeted with .NET, SQL Server, and Ubuntu on
Windows. Now instead of buying the same version of that Macbook, those folks
can go buy a Surface Tablet clone with the pen and touch screen (and a Windows
10 license!), and still do all of their development on a Unix-style
environment. Better yet some will transition to C#, and some will even take
advantage of the free-license-for-Oracle-users to switch to SQL Server.

------
sickbeard
How is it the truth if the author specifically mentions that he his
speculating?

------
ausjke
To me Microsoft has been evil long enough, instead of welcoming they "join"
open source world, I'm 1000x more concerned they become a tumour and hurt the
booming open source at large. Just leave OSS alone Microsoft!

~~~
dbgm
Why do I keep rolling my eyes everytime I go on hacker news?

Microsoft providing more free tools in their suite is nothing but nice. It
certainly won't do any harm to OSS.

~~~
vblord
I can't believe you don't see the evil. Open your eyes. Just because a company
pays 400 million for Xamarin and then open sources the Xamarin SDKs for
Android, iOS, and Mac shouldn't fool you. People everywhere... revolt!

If you can't tell, I am being sarcastic. I love Microsoft. People just believe
what they want to believe. I'm sure they will never change.

~~~
badsock
Sometimes it's a virtue to hold a grudge.

If people and companies are forgiven the instant they stop being abusive, then
what's the disincentive to being abusive again? Microsoft did what they did
because they had a monopoly position; they've changed now that they've lost
it. There's absolutely nothing to say that they won't go right back to the way
they were if they get a monopoly again.

If someone has been hitting you with a stick for years, and then all the
sudden shows up with a big smile because they've lost their stick and they
think you could help them get it back, what kind of fool would help them?

------
devereaux
Yes, it does. Not so much on servers or desktops, but on phones. The mobile
ecosystem is in danger of becoming a iOS/Android duopoly (or already is,
depending on which X you want in 9X% to say it is)

I love Windows Phones. No so many apps, which is good as I don't have that
much time to tweak stuff. Sensitive defaults like a black theme (!!!), a click
to enable reading aloud SMS (!!), crazy battery features.

They are liquidating the current WP8 line, so it's like $30 if you want to get
a Lumia 640 LTE to play with for a weekend (and free unlock code if you want
to keep it but don't want AT&T). It's just sad to see something that had so
many good things for it go the way of the Dodo.

------
Roboprog
I don't think MS is "embracing open source" (or even necessarily rejecting
it), so much as they are acknowledging that Linux servers are here to stay for
a while, and simply grabbing a piece of the pie instead of ignoring it. Much
like Oracle having its own Linux distro.

Perhaps enough shareholders complained about a market segment simply being
given to OSX (development environment for work intended for a POSIX server)
that they simply had to act. No more, no less. Not benevolent or malevolent,
just picking up some loose cash :-)

~~~
Roboprog
Maybe they are too late, though. I still like my Mac better than Windows
version N, and have largely switched from Ubuntu (formerly RedHat, formerly
Slackware) to OSX at home for the family.

The UI on the last few Windows versions has really confused me as to WTH they
think they are doing.

~~~
Roboprog
I remember when my kids got the version of MS Office at school that came with
Vista/Win7. All the complaining about Open Office / Linux stopped, as they
learned that the Win XP layout was NOT God's Own User Interface.

------
raarts
A possible reason for bringing MSSQL to Linux that was not mentioned in TFA at
all: customers requesting it.

------
chris_wot
I wonder what Ballmer thinks, after all he was the one who called Linux a
"cancer".

~~~
WorldMaker
I realize you are likely being rhetorical, but in case you aren't, Ballmer
recently said that Linux is not a threat, and likely has not been a threat,
even if he thinks that Microsoft did what it needed to do to survive at the
time he called Linux a "cancer". [1]

More importantly, Ballmer was not wrong in saying that Microsoft's focus as a
company has been and should always be "Developers, Developers, Developers" and
everything about this Ubuntu on Windows effort is for Developers.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-
id...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-
idUSKCN0WC2RA)

------
ybrah
Click bait title and speculation

------
meapix
in other words, just installing cygwin.

