Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS
Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS
Quote:
Sitting down? Nothing in your mouth?
Microsoft has developed its own Linux distribution. And Azure runs it to do networking.
Redmond's revealed that it's built something called Azure Cloud Switch (ACS), describing it as “a cross-platform modular operating system for data center networking built on Linux” and “our foray into building our own software for running network devices like switches.”
Kamala Subramanian, Redmond's principal architect for Azure Networking, writes that: “At Microsoft, we believe there are many excellent switch hardware platforms available on the market, with healthy competition between many vendors driving innovation, speed increases, and cost reductions.”
(Translation: Microsoft partners, we mean you no harm.)
“However, what the cloud and enterprise networks find challenging is integrating the radically different software running on each different type of switch into a cloud-wide network management platform. Ideally, we would like all the benefits of the features we have implemented and the bugs we have fixed to stay with us, even as we ride the tide of newer switch hardware innovation.”
(Translation: Software-defined networking (SDN) is a very fine idea.)
But it appears Redmond couldn't find SDN code to fits its particular needs, as it says ACS “... focuses on feature development based on Microsoft priorities” and “allows us to debug, fix, and test software bugs much faster. It also allows us the flexibility to scale down the software and develop features that are required for our datacenter and our networking needs.”
ACS is designed to use the Switch Abstraction Interface (SAI), an OpenCompute effort that offers an API to program ASICs inside network devices.
Microsoft's post revealing ACS says a fair bit about its features but doesn't explain why Microsoft felt decided to do with Linux distro? Perhaps the complexity of the world's switching ecosystem was the reason: Redmond says it has demonstrated ACS across with “four ASIC vendors (Mellanox, Broadcom, Cavium, and the Barefoot software switch), six implementations of SAI (Broadcom, Dell, Mellanox, Cavium, Barefoot, and Metaswitch), and three applications stacks (Microsoft, Dell, and Metaswitch).”
Subramaniam's post ends by letting us know: “We’re talking about ACS publicly as we believe this approach of disaggregating the switch software from the switch hardware will continue to be a growing trend in the networking industry and we would like to contribute our insights and experiences of this journey starting here.”
That experience clearly includes Linux, not Windows, as the path to SDN.
Distribution: Lubuntu, Raspbian, Openelec, messing with others.
Posts: 143
Rep:
I was thinking the same thing when I read this: "It also allows us the flexibility to scale down the software and develop features that are required"
I read it as: It allows us the ability to EXTEND.
As long as all the kernel developers are not bought off, and Gnu can't be bought; good luck with the third part.
As long as all the kernel developers are not bought off, and Gnu can't be bought
Depending on one's point of view, Torvalds can be seen as a champion of diversity or an unofficial Red Hat employee, since a significant portion of the funds for kernel development, and Torvald's income, come from Red Hat. GNU cannot be bought? GNU, especially Gnome, have a pretty close relationship with Red Hat. I am not declaring such things good or bad, just pointing out that blind belief in the sanctity of the kernel and GNU is as bad as blind belief in anything else.
Depending on one's point of view, Torvalds can be seen as a champion of diversity or an unofficial Red Hat employee, since a significant portion of the funds for kernel development, and Torvald's income, come from Red Hat. GNU cannot be bought? GNU, especially Gnome, have a pretty close relationship with Red Hat. I am not declaring such things good or bad, just pointing out that blind belief in the sanctity of the kernel and GNU is as bad as blind belief in anything else.
But Red Hat does not wage war to Open Source software like Microsoft does.
Red Hat is contributing to Open Source software used by other communities and companies not related to Red Hat and they don't bring them to court claiming copyright infringement like Microsoft and its many patent trolls do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPTN_Holdings
Microsoft is always trying to steal like conquistadores did in America when they slaughtered the indigenous populations.
But Red Hat does not wage war to Open Source software like Microsoft does.
No, they don't wage war. Some of their moves give the appearance that they do wish to have (greater) control over it. Like Randicus I will not declare such actions good or bad, but they do exist.
Microsoft contributes more to the Linux kernel than Ubuntu does. I am not claiming that Microsoft and Red Hat are the same because they both contribute to the kernel, but it shows that focusing on contribution can be misleading. Investing money in any endeavour can have various motivations.
Microsoft contributes more to the Linux kernel than Ubuntu does. I am not claiming that Microsoft and Red Hat are the same because they both contribute to the kernel, but it shows that focusing on contribution can be misleading. Investing money in any endeavour can have various motivations.
From past history, the Microsoft contributions are only aimed at locking Linux to their monopoly, stealing it away from the people, and it gives me goose bumps.
Them and the other members of the CPTN Holdings.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
