
Microsoft and Red Hat partner - kenrick95
http://blogs.microsoft.com/?p=54883?wt.mc_id=WW_ABG_CLD_OO_SCL_TW&Ocid=C+E%20Social%20FY16_Social_TW_MSCloud_20151104_268989404
======
thebouv
I'm not fooling myself into seeing this as anything but a "you scratch my
back, I'll scratch yours" setup. RedHat is getting a ton out of this, and so
is Microsoft.

Who's the main target for Azure? Enterprise companies who trust Microsoft
implicitly. When an exec comes to the head of IT and says "we need to be on
the cloud! I read about it!", Azure eases the transition by being able to go
to vendor you've already been using for a dozen years.

RedHat's core audience is enterprise as well. RHEL is the de facto standard
for that level of infrastructure due to the support you can get versus any of
the distributions that are equally as good, but minus the support contracts.

So, they're helping each other out and that's good in my humble opinion.

Microsoft's new direction under their new CEO is one surprise after another.
I've only tinkered with Azure so far but makes me want to pay MS more
attention than I would have a couple years ago.

~~~
joepie91_
> Microsoft's new direction under their new CEO is one surprise after another.

I don't know about that, it all seems fairly logical. Don't forget that
Microsoft is primarily a "business business" rather than a software business
(ie. optimizing for business longevity above all else).

Microsoft appears to have practically perfected the game of "maintaining
vendor lock-in in an otherwise open ecosystem". That game requires "giving in"
at times, when it is no longer viable (in the long term) to compete with other
options.

A good example of this is the open-sourcing of .NET. I don't believe for a
second that this was a change of heart of a developer or even a team - it is
far more likely that Microsoft is realizing the increasing shift away from
Windows and .NET, and towards more 'open' platforms (whether Python, Node.js,
Ruby, Golang, or whatever else).

It is in their best interest to make .NET open-source, as it allows them to
maintain their foothold in the application development community - it _still_
has direct integration with the rest of their products (and thus incentivizes
picking MS as a vendor), but can now compete on openness.

You can see something similar for Windows 10, and it being given away for
free. Both OS X and Linux are increasingly eating away at Windows'
marketshare. By offering it for 'free' to existing Windows users (ie. nearly
everybody), they can attempt to win users back, as it is now offered at the
same price (in the eyes of the consumer).

Throughout the existence of Microsoft, they have _consistently_ pushed the
boundary of vendor lock-in and marketshare, trying to keep it as closed as
possible but as open as necessary. The more recent decisions from Microsoft
are not surprising to me at all - they are simply the result of a rapidly
changing computing landscape. Microsoft hasn't changed, their environment has.

~~~
bobbles
> I don't know about that, it all seems fairly logical.

For people dealing with Microsoft for many years... this is the surprising
part.

------
diakritikal
In the last 5 years we've experimented with Linux on top of hyper-v a few
times.

The basic I/O, compile & runtime performance was significantly inferior to xen
& kvm (didn't bench against vmware, phasing it out due to cost), it wasn't
worth any effort to even deploy apps for testing.

Therefore I don't see Linux on hyper-v being a compelling option for the cost
conscientious technical officer or lead engineer.

~~~
aexaey
I'm getting approximately the same CPU & storage performance out of Azure's A0
machine w/Debian8, as from AWS t2.micro instance with spinning rust storage
and Debian8 (both are cheapest offer available, and price is quite similar
between them).

Network on Azure though is a totally wrecked thing:

\- A0 instance is capped to a miserable 5 megabit/s uplink (downlink is fine);

\- If you want TCP/UDP ports open, you need to open them one-by-one, going
through a 2-page wizard with 8 fields in total to fill in for _each_ port you
are opening, and then waiting 15-20 seconds for each "change" to be applied.
Good luck opening a 1024-port range for your SIP server;

\- You can't open ICMP/GRE/IPSEC or any other custom protocol;

\- There are ton of really weirdly configured network gear between your VM and
the Internet - packet drops and private IPs in traceroute, etc...

\- On a plus side, you can enable so called "direct server return" and you
will get incoming packets with your public IP as a destination IP; a really
nice feature sorely missing on AWS.

~~~
gruez
>A0 instance is capped to a miserable 5 megabit/s uplink (downlink is fine);

I thought it was 10Mb/s?

>If you want TCP/UDP ports open, you need to open them one-by-one, going
through a 2-page wizard with 8 fields in total to fill in for each port you
are opening, and then waiting 15-20 seconds for each "change" to be applied.
Good luck opening a 1024-port range for your SIP server;

...or use the powershell cmdlets and do it in one line

~~~
aexaey
> I thought it was 10Mb/s?

Alas... Also, in my experience, throttling is really slow to react, i.e. you
get a chunk of data out at 10-20Mb/s, then everything freezes for few seconds
until average would drop below 5Mbps, then another speed-up/slow-down cycle.
Long-term average is exactly 5Mbps as per their spec-sheet [1].

[1]
[http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/1/1/411621F0-D0BF-4...](http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/1/1/411621F0-D0BF-4E44-BAFD-18C7AEA7B6FA/VirtualMachines.pdf)

[2] [https://www.oaklight.us/2014/06/azure-network-speed-quick-
te...](https://www.oaklight.us/2014/06/azure-network-speed-quick-tests/)

------
scholia
This isn't really new, it's just Red Hat being late to the party. From Jun 6,
2012:

 _" The Linux services will go live on Azure at 4 a.m. EDT on Thursday. At
that time, the Azure portal will offer a number of Linux distributions,
including Suse Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP2, OpenSuse 12.01, CentOS 6.2 and
Canonical Ubuntu 12.04. Azure users will be able to choose and deploy a Linux
distribution from the Microsoft Windows Azure Image Gallery."_

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/257073/microsoft_to_run_linux...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/257073/microsoft_to_run_linux_on_azure.html)

Or you could always load your own distro of choice in Hyper-V.

~~~
toyg
Or rather Microsoft desperately clinging on RedHat to make its cloud
proposition look commercially legit. I mean, look at that list: the first
_two_ items are for SuSE, a distribution that is hardly popular these days,
then you have "knockoff RedHat" CentOS and "hobbyist's choice" Ubuntu. I'm
surprised they left off Debian, I guess that's still a bit too hippy. In any
case, not the stuff of dreams, from a commercial standpoint.

So you can spin it both ways, really.

~~~
scholia
Was simply pointing out the _fact_ that Linux has been on Azure for years,
because apparently some people don't know that. Indeed, according to
Microsoft: "More than 20 percent of Azure virtual machines run on Linux."

[http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html](http://news.microsoft.com/cloud/index.html)

You're welcome to spin anything you like.

~~~
toyg
Yeah, but "Red Hat being late" is not a fact, it's placing the burden on Red
Hat for getting their stuff running _on Microsoft 's systems for Microsoft's
benefit_. "Microsoft was late getting Red Hat on board" is the exact same fact
with the opposite spin.

No spin would have been "both companies ironed out an agreement allowing their
products to be commercially supported when working together, three years after
Azure launched support for Linux systems". I know, not sexy.

~~~
scholia
Red Hat could have been one of the first Linuxes on Azure, if it had wanted.
But back in 2013, it said: "Red Hat CEO: We don't need Microsoft to succeed"
[http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-
ceo--...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--we-don-
t-need-microsoft-to-succeed.html)

I don't see why you're quibbling about "late". It's a _fact_ that it's more
than three years later than a bunch of other versions. But hey, you can have
your own spin.

~~~
toyg
Note how RedHat didn't say that: if you read the actual article (despite being
from InfoWorld):

 _> InfoWorld: Microsoft has a close business relationship with Suse Linux.
That seems to be Microsoft's Linux of choice, and the company doesn't seem
interested in having the same kind of partnership with Red Hat. Is that a
problem for Red Hat?

> Jim Whitehurst: We'd be happy to work on interoperability with Microsoft or
> anyone else._

So yeah, Microsoft made a specific choice to partner with SuSE. RH said
"whatever". Three years later, an agreement was finally struck between the
two.

Did RH "come around"? Or did MS finally recognize SuSE is a losing
proposition? You don't know and I don't know, but implying one side took
action without having any proof for it is, well, spin.

~~~
scholia
I know Microsoft pretty well, and it would have wanted to support as many
versions as possible, within the available time-frame. It obviously didn't
_just_ support SuSE, so your implied either/or is just yet more of your spin.

I don't know Red Hat that well (it's a few years since we've talked), but it
has a strong focus on its own cloud business (1). It might have seen Azure as
a rival to Red Hat cloud services, but that's just my speculation.

(1) [https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-
computing](https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing)

BELOW

 _> I have no horse in this, no investment, nothing; I just don't like
unsupported bias. Can you say the same?_

If you really don't like unsupported bias, perhaps you shouldn't post comments
that reveal so much of it ;-)

 _> Yes, it is "just your speculation"._

You could also cut out the cheap tricks. I referred specifically to the
comment on Red Hat's motives, not to anything else.

~~~
toyg
_> I know Microsoft pretty well, and it would have wanted to support as many
versions as possible_

That's nice to know and I'm sure everyone always means well, but it doesn't
change anything in factual terms. I don't know Red Hat but I'm sure they'd
like to support as many cloud services as possible.

 _> It obviously didn't just support SuSE, so your implied either/or is just
yet more of your spin._

Dude, honestly, I'm only reading what you linked, with InfoWorld saying MS had
a preferential agreement with SuSE. I didn't link that, you did; if it doesn't
agree with your view, why did you link it?

Your first list had SuSE (twice), CentOS and Ubuntu, and again I took it at
face value, so I don't think I implied anything.

I have no horse in this, no investment, nothing; I just don't like unsupported
bias. Can you say the same?

 _> It might have seen Azure as a rival to Red Hat cloud services_

Sure, exactly like Microsoft might have seen Red Hat as a rival to Windows
Server in the cloud.

 _> but that's just my speculation._

Yes, it is "just your speculation". That's what I said, and why I responded to
your initial comment. Maybe because of insider knowledge you might have,
you're interpreting facts in a somewhat biased view. That's fine, but you
cannot assume everyone shares this particular view of the facts and spin it as
an absolute truth.

IMHO we've said everything that needed to be said so we might as well close it
here.

~~~
aabbccdd
SUSE partnered with Microsoft, that's true, before SUSE was bought by
Microfocus:

[https://www.suse.com/company/press/2015/suse-is-now-part-
of-...](https://www.suse.com/company/press/2015/suse-is-now-part-of-micro-
focus.html)

------
bovermyer
For me, this piece was the most interesting:

"Collaboration on .NET for a new generation of application development
capabilities, providing access to .NET technologies across Red Hat offerings,
including OpenShift and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which will be available
within the next few weeks."

Further development of .NET as cross-platform, not just Windows-based? That
could bode well for the stack.

I doubt I'll ever write .NET code again, but this seems like a sensible
decision to me.

------
technofiend
I think this is just ticking a box for Microsoft since I believe you can get
RH on AWS. But let's be honest - how many people will perceive any value in
stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? Sure if you already
have a .NET app, hosting it in UNIX may give you some benefit. But is anyone
really going to write an app from scratch with this in mind? I'm skeptical.

~~~
johncolanduoni
With their release of CoreCLR[1], which combined with the class libraries, I
think there is a lot of reason to look at .NET on UNIX. The implementation
includes the same JIT and GC that the .NET framework uses, it just cuts out a
bunch of bits that likely wouldn't be relevant to people developing server
backends (WPF, AppDomains, etc.).

For server stuff, .NET is now close to the level of openness and compatibility
that the OpenJDK enjoys. If you like C# or F# better than Java, there is
plenty of reason to switch.

[1]: [https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr](https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr)

~~~
technofiend
You may be right, I don't know. I suppose the acid test is when YC companies
start posting for front-end developers with C#, .NET and UNIX experience
versus what's required today, i.e. either node.js, django, ruby, etc.

~~~
edgyswingset
Why YC companies? There are lots of other startups out there (some of which
even using .NET).

~~~
technofiend
Ah, great question. I sort of view the YC guys as cutting edge, i.e. willing
and able to adopt new and sometimes still changing technology. In contrast to
a Fortune 500 shop which in my humble opinion is unlikely to adopt a wholesale
change to a new technology.

------
ARothfusz
I remember when Microsoft teamed up with IBM on OS/2, so I'd predict that
Microsoft comes out with its own brand of Linux within 5 years. That will give
them time to learn what they need to include/exclude and support.

~~~
Ologn
In the late 1980s, Microsoft's version of Unix, Xenix, was installed on more
machines than any other version of Unix.

Radio Shack sold Tandy HD machines running Xenix to business customers. In
fact, Radio Shack stores themselves used a POS system running Xenix, up until
the mid 1990s at least.

Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO in 1987.

------
yxhuvud
Now that is a headline that would have raised a few eyebrows 15 years ago.

~~~
frik
In 2006 we had a similar headline.

Microsoft partnered with Novell (SuSE Linux), and there was no happy end for
one of them (Novell is no more; SuSE Linux once a major distribution next to
RedHat is a shadow of its former self).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsof...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft)

~~~
bad_user
I remember that one. Many people were pissed off because that partnership
included a patents agreement. This was because in the eyes of many, this meant
an acknowledgement from Novell that Microsoft was in the right to claim
patents infringement of Linux and SuSE Linux was then advertised as the safe
distribution. Talk about a sure way to piss off your community.

~~~
rch
Not just an agreement, but also that 'Novell agreed to pay royalties to
Microsoft based on Novell's open source sales'.

[http://www.infoworld.com/article/2654097/linux/the-
microsoft...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2654097/linux/the-microsoft-
novell-linux-deal--two-years-later.html)

------
rottyguy
forgetting the cloud stuff for now, this is much more interesting:

"Collaboration on .NET for a new generation of application development
capabilities, providing access to .NET technologies across Red Hat offerings,
including OpenShift and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which will be available
within the next few weeks."

Xplat .net is coming to RC1 in a couple of weeks (per roadmap:
[https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/Roadmap](https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/Roadmap))
and it's exciting to see that RHEL will support it. It makes sense for
Microsoft, traditionally an enterprise company on the backend, to partner with
a *nix company with, primarily, enterprise clients on the backend.

If nothing else, the toolset microsoft brings to the table will raise all
boats on the -nix side IMO.

------
decafbad
"Unthinkable" This was title of Redhat's comment on Microsoft-Suse
partnership.

------
erostrate
"Linux is a cancer" Microsoft's CEO, 2001 (Steve Ballmer)

Source: [http://slashdot.org/story/01/06/01/1658258/ballmer-calls-
lin...](http://slashdot.org/story/01/06/01/1658258/ballmer-calls-linux-a-
cancer)

------
bechampion
who uses redhat ? (im not being sarcastic)

~~~
sharms
Regulatory compliance in various fields stipulates that you have defined
responsibilities and support accountability. The net value here is that a
vendor like Red Hat is already deployed at companies who comply to the same
regulations, so we can all share and leverage best practice documents to
satisfy those controls. Even if you had a team of 10 smart Linux engineers,
you save time and money by leveraging Red Hat.

In addition, you may also need patent indemnification and reliable security
updates (we leaned on Red Hat heavily during ShellShock and others). For
example, before I release a Linux image I have a checklist of 450+ items,
including things like NIST certification. Red Hat streamlines this process as
it has already been certified across the most strenuous of regulatory and
compliance environments, and we can reuse much of that work.

This isn't important for a clothing website startup for example, but for
aircraft, CT scanners, anything ISO compliant, finance it is paramount to what
is being delivered.

------
jasonjei
Microsoft did a partnership like this before with Apple (Microsoft Office) but
it didn't turn out so well for Apple. Wondering what the outcome would be like
with Satya in the driver's seat.

~~~
riskable
A better comparison would be a situation where Microsoft partnered with a
company over an operating system... Like IBM with OS/2 which turned out great,
right? haha

Or let's look at when Microsoft partnered with Novell:

[http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-makes-linux-pact-with-
nov...](http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-makes-linux-pact-with-novell/)

The byline from that article is classic! "Former software foes pledge to work
together to help Windows world and Linux world interoperate."

Turned out _great_ for Novell, right? Hah! Does anyone use SuSE anymore? It's
market is so tiny it's hard to find statistics for it.

Other fun Microsoft partnerships: Nokia, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Yahoo,
Nortel, Sendo, and probably dozens of smaller companies that came & went or
are but a fraction of their former selves.

A more interesting thing to track: How is the partnership with Microsoft
working out for Docker? I'm really curious what the heck Microsoft is going to
do in the next version of Windows Server to actually support realistic
containerization.

~~~
jasonjei
Thanks for all the examples where Microsoft pulled a Trojan. I totally agree.
If Win32 embraces the Linux kernel calls to make Docker work without
virtualization, is there a possible Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish plan? Or
are businesses smart enough to avoid a repeat of ActiveX?

Microsoft made a pact with Sun back in the day where they would support Java.
If memory serves, Microsoft supported a Java that only worked on Win32 using
J/Direct calls that natively supported Win32 instead of being OS independent
like most Java apps.

------
rasz_pl
Did/will Red Hat hire Miguel de Icaza next? First systemD, now this. Sounds
like Suse/Novell.

------
DigitalSea
Here is a headline I never thought I would ever see. I guess from a business
perspective this makes a tonne of sense. Red Hat is a massive player in the
Linux market.

------
striking
Well, at least it explains systemd.

/s

~~~
bitL
Hahaha, came here to say exactly that.

So, Red Hat is the next Nokia now?

------
daveloyall
Embrace, extend, extinguish.

~~~
kfcpanda
Oh... you heard about that?

------
ck2
So next version of Windows getting systemd?

Systemd would be right at home in Windows.

------
bitmapbrother
Awesome. I can't wait to receive my Redhat voucher.

------
cdnsteve
A cloud provider that offers Linux and Windows, this is cutting edge.

~~~
ceejayoz
Sure, it's not cutting edge, but it's one of a bunch of signs recently that
Microsoft has turned over a new leaf in the last few years.

Visual Studio's page now mentions Git, a GPLed piece of software built for
Linux kernel development. They've come a long way from "GPL is cancer!"

~~~
u02sgb
And there's git-tf: [http://www.microsoft.com/en-
gb/download/details.aspx?id=3047...](http://www.microsoft.com/en-
gb/download/details.aspx?id=30474) a command line git-alike that will work
with a TFS server.

Not nice to use, in my experience, but it is officially from MS.

------
mtgx
Considering fewer enterprises trust Windows 10 with every new headline about
how it spies on you, I guess they had no choice but to offer Linux as an
option as well.

Also relevant to "Microsoft's love for Linux":

[https://plus.google.com/+SimonPhipps/posts/c636Vp4kKbf](https://plus.google.com/+SimonPhipps/posts/c636Vp4kKbf)

~~~
scholia
Windows 10 uptake is remarkably good on Windows 10, perhaps because
enterprises don't fall for click-bait headlines.

Microsoft Says 1.5 Million Enterprise Users Have Deployed Windows 10
[https://redmondmag.com/blogs/the-schwartz-
report/2015/08/ent...](https://redmondmag.com/blogs/the-schwartz-
report/2015/08/enterprises-deployed-windows-10.aspx)

Bank of America CTO Talks Windows 10 Plans, Security
[http://www.informationweek.com/strategic-cio/executive-
insig...](http://www.informationweek.com/strategic-cio/executive-insights-and-
innovation/bank-of-america-cto-talks-windows-10-plans-
security-/d/d-id/1321721)

 _" Reilly promised a Windows 10 upgrade is on the horizon for Bank of
America. "We're looking to adopt as early as we can," he said. Such a project
will be a massive undertaking given the sheer multitude of Windows devices
within the organization, but he appears optimistic about the process."_

I was a Microsoft sceptic, but Windows 10 has me convinced
[http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-
news/i-wa...](http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/i-was-a-
microsoft-sceptic-but-windows-10-has-me-convinced-20150817-gj1e5y.html)

 _" Then, last week, at an event hosted by CIO magazine, where I gave a
keynote, I spoke to a group of Chief Information Officers of large and
midsized companies about technology trends. The vast majority said they were
buying Microsoft's Surface Pro tablets for their users and upgrading desktop
machines to Windows 10."_

See also: Configure telemetry and other settings in your organization
[https://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/mt577208%28v=vs....](https://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/mt577208%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

