GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
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.
I heard about this on the Linux Action News podcast. Above is the linked article.
Q: What's the heck with microsoft?
First, it was the ubuntu bash shell in windows 10, secondly bringing SUSE, Ubuntu, and Fedora to the Windows Store and now the linux subsystem in the windows serer.
A: Microsoft <3 linux!
Microsoft may be lovey-dovey to linux but I still despite microsoft and everything about them.
I remember people predicting years ago that MS would end up selling Linux software, and it makes sense - with Linux use growing across the industry, MS must eventually calculate that they can make more money by working with it than by working against it. At which point, history tells us, they'll immediately sit on their hands for 5 years or so, and then start working with it.
Presumably they'll try to extend & extinguish, but Linux is robust, and if the community sticks to its guns then MS might eventually do an IBM, and actually learn to play nicely with the community. But even if they do, I think Linux users will be using long spoons for a long time.
Despite the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercials, Microsoft was an early supporter of Apple and remains a major shareholder. To support the MS-Office rewrite project (which mad "Word for Mac" and "Word for PC" the same thing), Microsoft fairly-perfected cross platform technology. (And yet, they never published MS-Access for Mac – go figger.)
Nonetheless: Microsoft's product is software, not just the Windows operating system. Linux does represent a major potential market for them, and I have no idea why Microsoft did not embrace it decades ago.
Well, maybe I do know why: "Bill, and The Other Steve.™" I think that Microsoft has had a big problem with the "Not Invented Here" Syndrome. I think that it has cost them a lot of profits.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-22-2017 at 07:48 AM.
Prediction? Here's mine. This is evolution and also economics and just as "bad money" drives out "good money" (Inflation, among other phenomena) this is just a step toward the end of Cathedral operating systems. I predict that at some point Operating Systems will be utterly ubiquitous and homogenized. The only software being sold will be firmware and applications as computing becomes involved in virtually everything.
If you didn't know, Microsoft sold Unix OS for a few years, long before there was a linux.
And I've never quite understood why the company has done nothing with Xenix.®
It's even a good trade-name . . .
I've just never understood why Microsoft Corporation so-doggedly pursued: "Windows, Windows, über alles!"
Maybe, now that "the other Steve" is officially gone, the company will start broadening its sights. (And if they do, "watch out!") Microsoft makes good software and they know how to be a formidable business competitor. Plus, they've got cash.
Personally, I'd love to see them enter this market.
And I've never quite understood why the company has done nothing with Xenix.®
It's even a good trade-name . . .
Because it was sold off to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and wasn't really theirs in the first place (it was licensed from AT&T and initially based on V7 Research UNIX). SCO did most of the work, including the porting work (e.g. to i386) anyway. Which is partially why they ultimately inherited it (and in later years acquired UNIX itself from Novell). SCO were bought out by the now infamous Caldera Systems and the rest is history...
A whole history of lawsuits against open source OS from Caldera, Microsoft and others in fact...
This is what Microsoft did and have done historically - leach off others and take the credit and conduct business in a nasty anti-competitive way. The tactics might have changed slightly, but the nastiness continues, while Microsoft does not get too much involved in patent trolling these days, Intellectual Ventures certainly does.
Because it was sold off to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and wasn't really theirs in the first place (it was licensed from AT&T and initially based on V7 Research UNIX). SCO did most of the work, including the porting work (e.g. to i386) anyway. Which is partially why they ultimately inherited it (and in later years acquired UNIX itself from Novell).
A Federal Court ruled that Novell did not sell UNIX to SCO and that SCO did not own UNIX. At that point the whole Microsoft financed SCO scam fell apart.
Quote:
The case hinged upon the interpretation of asset-transfer agreements between Novell and one of SCO's predecessor companies, the Santa Cruz Operation. Novell counter-sued, claiming that the asset-transfer agreements did not, in fact, transfer the intellectual property rights SCO sought. Novell further asked the Court to find that SCO had breached the agreements by signing Unix license agreements with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft without paying Novell the agreed percentage of those agreements.
Novell was found to be the owner of the Unix copyrights, and SCO was found to have breached the asset-transfer agreements.
A Federal Court ruled that Novell did not sell UNIX to SCO and that SCO did not own UNIX. At that point the whole Microsoft financed SCO scam fell apart.
Yes. Hence: "the rest is history". "Scam" is a good word for it.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.