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!
So do tell me, how did Microsoft change?
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.
Is spying on everyone and constantly sending telemetry even when disabled (to the extent people actually wrote a tool to go to every corner and forcefully disable it and even then it didn't work) not nefarious?
What are you even talking about here, they haven't changed a slightest bit.
Maybe I want to have updates that cannot be disabled? No, I want my machine to do what I want, not what MS wants.
Maybe I want to know that pic browsing app can't run without UAC (win8, looking at you)? I don't either, I just want to launch it.
They are still pounding that close-minded philosophy just like before. Their reputation is well-deserved.
I'm patiently awaiting another move in EEE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) direction from them, this time with our last bastion - Linux.
In there Microsoft now is perfectly still the 90s Microsoft.
From my point of view, the Linux on Win10 is a strategic move to incentive people use Windows as their sole desktop (since with this move many people won't have any reason whatsoever to use Linux at all).
I tried to convince lots of people on the Linux community that they need to react... of course, not blocking Microsoft (that would be silly, and unfree), but by fixing stuff that people wants fixed for years: Audio, driver support in general, ease of use, not having to edit text config files, and so on...
But instead I got EXTREMELY negative reactions, some people even told me they are against AMDGPU driver efforts because it would make Linux more accessible to stupid people that will need help.
With companies, I have no need to weigh their positive behavior more heavily. No one's feelings are at risk of being hurt; no friendships are on the line. If a company burns me with bad practices, it's safe and prudent to hold their mistakes against them. It should take a very long time for companies to build back goodwill, once lost.
I suspect some patent hijinks happened there, and you and I just don't know the details.
You want to talk about secret, ask Google for a copy of the secret contracts every Android OEM is bound to.
In addition, Microsoft was under US Federal oversight until 2011, but then had it extended another two years for failure to comply with the original court order. So let's not forget that.
It was also characteristic of anti-trust suits in general. They are much less about whether you committed a crime, and more about whether what you did can be redefined as a crime many years later.
The DoJ supervision was extended over the readability of Microsoft's enforced documentation of communications protocols, which it was ordered to rewrite.
In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly blamed Microsoft. "Although the technical documentation project is complex and novel, it is clear, at least to the Court, that Microsoft is culpable for this inexcusable delay," she wrote.
But she also wrote that the company had been "overwhelmingly cooperative" in the years after the antitrust settlement, and that this latest extension should not be viewed as a sanction. http://www.pcworld.com/article/142004/article.html
They are a public traded company. They are beholden to shareholders not consumers, their customers or myself.
It is profitable to entice users into your ecosystem and trap them there. Apple, Google and Microsoft all do it.
I do have to ask, though: After being slighted for years, why should they be given an immediate pass because of very recent events that make nerds happy?
I'm waiting for the proprietary extensions to the bash shell that requires you to license your software because it was created with windows bash. MSVCRT.dll ftw
(SQL Server is the BEST! Outlook is the BEST! Everything can be done in Excel! Visual Source Safe is the BEST! Oh wait, TFS with a SQL Server back end is the BEST! )
Those people should have a look at research.microsoft.com, and compare their (public) research output to that of companies like Apple or even Google.
> 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.
Count me as being trapped in the 90s.
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.
This is a legitimate question, since I am not a Windows user: has it really? Or are you referring to GNU software[0], which is not what we are referring to when we say GNU is a fully free Unix replacement; GNU software is only a part of that.[1]
[0]: https://gnu.org/software/
[1]: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
> 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.
Sure they have. But that's not what the conversation is focused on: it's focused on being able to use GNU Bash and all the other Unix (mostly GNU) utilities that hackers are used to using.
> And the reason it's not almost finished is because the GNU project considers the kernel unimportant
Linux completed a major missing piece of GNU, which we refer to as GNU/Linux.[2]
[2]: https://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Specifically:
"Once Torvalds freed Linux in 1992, it fit into the last major gap in the GNU system. People could then combine Linux with the GNU system to make a complete free system — a version of the GNU system which also contained Linux. The GNU/Linux system, in other words."[2]
Second, the GNU project will never get the Oscar because the FSF is incredibly inept at spreading it's message.
GNU is a fully free Unix replacement---an operating system; it is more than a bunch of GNU software:
This just seems like a seriously tardy "me-too" piece.
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.
Microsoft providing more free tools in their suite is nothing but nice. It certainly won't do any harm to OSS.
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.
Microsoft has acted unethically from it's inception until just recently when they've been backed into a corner. For decades they've repeated shown that they're willing to damage the entire industry if it means that they end up with more control over it.
Why would you trust that this recent change of heart is permanent given that their hand was forced? When they start acting ethically when they don't have to - that's when I'll reconsider my position.
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.
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 :-)
The UI on the last few Windows versions has really confused me as to WTH they think they are doing.
But at some point, you and I will retire (etc), and the next generation might have other preferences, or discover something insanely great that we simply aren't used to.
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...
