Not sure if I should be happy
One the one hand, if I'm forced to use Azure, I'll know what to roll out for network facing servers.
On the other, I'm not sure if I like the idea of Microshaft screwing with an otherwise excellent Operating System.
Microsoft has created its own cut of FreeBSD 10.3 in order to make the OS available and supported in Azure. Jason Anderson, principal PM manager at Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center says Redmond “took on the work of building, testing, releasing and maintaining the image” so it could “ensure our customers have an …
@DougS - While Apple OSX and iOS use some parts of FreeBSD, the kernel they use is from Mach, not FreeBSD. It's quite likely that none of what Microsoft has done with FreeBSD (probably mainly just special drivers for running on Hyper-V) will have any relevance to Apple's OS or even be compatible with it.
there is more to the Mac OSX kernel (XNU) than Mach, there is BSD code in there too for POSIX API, security including id and permissions, some of the BSD locking primitives, the virtual file system layer, crypto framework, the bsd flavor of System V IPC, and mandatory access control for kernel objects
"I'm fairly sure we can rely on the FreeBSD community to vet MS's contributions. And it sounds like MS are playing nicely anyway (for now at any rate). Amazing!"
I think this is yet another example of Satya Nadella's pragmatism and his acceptance (at last) that outside of the desktop environment, it is a multi-polar operating system world out there and that Microsoft has to adapt to that situation in order to survive as a corporate entity.
Interestingly, and I'm willing to be corrected on this one, this appears to be the first time that Microsoft has ever given back anything significant and meaningful to the open source operating system community - more of the same, please, Microsoft.
FreeBSD is currently still seen as a saner alternative to "modern" GNU/Linux where you don't have that FreeDesktop/systemd stuff. A system that potentially just works.
I think the arguments at MS HQ lie more in the direction of not being under GPL and possibly start to acquire enough knowledge to yet again try to copy Apple. Let's not forget, they're rubbish at innovating, but .. no, wait. They're rubbish at copying too. Never mind.
start to acquire enough knowledge to yet again try to copy Apple
They already have it and they have done it in the past. If you plot Windows development build TCP stack fingerprints going as far back as Windows 2000 they go through a "this looks exactly like BSD" moment every few years early in their release cycle. This is also the moment when the stack actually starts working too (this was the case with Win2K).
So what you are suggesting is nothing new, it is however mostly at low levels.
Actually I think a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack first appeared in NT 3.5.
Correct. Then it slowly MSFT-bit-rotted to be refreshed again in the early Win2K development cycle. And a again a few times later. TCP fingerprinting knows no mercy - it shows exactly what you are doing and whose stack did you cut-n-paste when yours was not delivering.
In the case of BSD it is permitted by license and Windows has always complied with it - if you dig around you can find the relevant "copyrights" and mentioning of BSD in their licensing info.
Microsoft Xenix had BSD compounds 30 years ago. For the first 10 years, that Microsoft was doing Hotmail it ran on Freebsd. Microsoft.net was the Built on freebsd and distributed in the Rotar shared source version.
Suggesting it's about E.E.E, is lazy nonsense.
"Suggesting it's about E.E.E, is lazy nonsense."
Agreed. It's not as if the FreeBSD team are going to accept kernel code that's licence encumbered. If MS tried that, FreeBSD would just wish them luck with their project and leave them to get on with it by themselves. Anyone is free to fork FreeBSD. You just need to acknowledge any licence holders where relevant. There's no constraints on "giving back" or enforced source code distribution as demonstrated many years ago when MS took the BSD TCP stack and built it into Windows.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
You could try Devuan. http://devuan.org/ They made a point of never supporting systemd.
I switched to them when a Debian upgrade on my laptop installed systemd and promptly broke the system (systemd would hang indefinitely at boot) forcing a reinstall.
Reading about systemd and its design philosophy had already put me off, as it reminded me too much of the mistakes Windows did. Sure it makes it easy for clueless "admins" to manage a machine, but kills the power and flexibility of Unix, and you can't delve down easily when debugging a misbehaving machine (the systemd shell is not a real alternative). All reasons why I left Windows for Linux/Unix in the first place.
I started the transition with my test VMs, with no problems at all. Now am transitioning my physical Debian machines across to it as upgrade time rolls round. Then I will move over my web/email hosting servers and that will be it.
I moved my server over to FreeBSD though, ZFS is awesome!
Between those two operating systems, I will never have to touch systemd, so RedHat and their cheerleaders/minions can have Pottering's latest turd for all I care.
You could try Devuan. http://devuan.org/ They made a point of never supporting systemd.
Agreed. I have a VB set up at the moment running Devuan. It seems fine compared with my last openSUSE install pre-systemd (11.4) and all the hype about systemd's abilities to open faster and perform better seems to be belied by Devuan.
Of course, as I found out on Twitter recently, there are any number of users out there that refuse to accept that just because RedHat have successfully rammed it down the throats of the more mainstream distros and its users, and they are happily dealing with its complexities and breakages, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is right.
It's probably mainly just para-virtualization drivers to cut down the virtualization overhead when running on that VM. That's what they did when they added Hyper-V support to Linux. They're just drivers which know they're talking to a VM instead of directly on actual hardware. If you're not running on MS Hyper-V, then you're not using their drivers.
It will be the equivalent of '/var/log' except that even root will not have ANY permissions. All data stored is sent directly to Microsoft's telemetry servers through a proprietary protocol which is not documented anywhere outside of Redmond's labs. Change one key in the pseudo-registry, and that data is mirrored to the NSA.
More than 60% (and growing) of Azure is currently Linux when the option to use FreeBSD was there.
Of course MS will incentivise using their version but it remains to be seen if businesses want to be tied into a Microsoft version of anything anymore - My guess is not because businesses do not have put all their instances in one cloud i.e. would anyone want to use Microsoft FreeBSD in Amazon?
>> More than 60% (and growing) of Azure is currently Linux
Wrong - its actually around 20%.
You were presumably so overcome with joy at reading this https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/more-open-source-innovation-azure/ that you missed the subtle but oh so important nuance that the 60% refers to the number of preconfigured Linux VM images available for copying from the image gallery - not the actual number of instances of VMs actually being run (and paid for) by customers.
Still, why let mere details get in the way of a good yarn...
1987 is indeed a large number of disks!They were probably single sided, single density 8" floppies. If you used DS, HD, it was probably only around 600 disks, and since you were unlikely to need the majority of printer drivers (since either the driver or the printer did not work anyway), very few people ever had to install more than 400 disks in any one install procedure.
...Of how those in the Linux community want everyone to join in and contribute to their preferred operating system... except maybe them over there, we don't want them playing with it. And those over in that corner too, we'd rather not let them in. And anyone else that doesn't fit in with the preferred image of what a contributor looks like... What DOES one look like, anyhow?
This, my friends, is the flipside to open source, namely that anyone can contribute. ANYONE. Wasn't that one of the much flaunted points about the whole deal? And if a big company wants to throw its own, apparently totally reviewable code, into the ring as well... then why not? Isn't this where all those eyeballs reviewing the code (another much shouted about benefit to the whole FOSS thing) should pick up any nasties, and throw them out at that stage? Or will it be very few who bother to look, finding it far easier to just decry the whole things as evil and manipulative?
It's entirely possible that this could end up being a wonky attempt to take over an existing product, but I would warn against believing that to be the only reason for this. After all, it's not unknown for companies and people to change, even if it's usually glacial in speed. But I fear it's just a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the main pet target for most of the ranty zealot types is now looking a bit more sympathetic towards the idea of Linux in general, and that irks them.
But then, how many movies and TV programs have had a supposed bad guy turn good at the last minute? It happens, people. At least respect the effort, even if you don't respect the entity.
(Cue down votes with no explanation. Or, if you're feeling charitable, provide a solid reason as to why you don't believe this might actually be a good thing!)
I totally agree with you.
I've grown up with Spectrum vs Commodore, then ST vs Amiga, then PC vs Mac, Linux vs Windows and to be honest it's all a bit pathetic.
I use windows on the desktop, because I like it. I also have a Linux desktop, but don't dabble with it much, because I prefer the software I have on Windows.
I have a Linux websever, as it's easier to maintain and perfect for the job I want it to do.
At work I use Windows Servers, Linux servers, propriety black boxes, heck we even have Linux black boxes with windows VM's running on them.
All have been chosen because they do what they are supposed to, regardless of OS.
Microsoft are embracing alternative OS's on Azure because it a sound, common sense business choice, not because they are saying "hey our software is crap", it's because if they don't people will go elsewhere.
If a benefit of this is improvement for everyone, then why reject it?
This post has been deleted by its author
of course it's a take-over attempt
there's no objective reason to run BSD over Linux. Features, speed, programmers, either Linux has it all, or can simply run BSD stuff
but BSD doesn't have this pesky GPL business so when they decide it's enough of this OSS lip service, MS can just close it up
(See also: core Android applications that are no longer developed in AOSP)
How are they going to close FreeBSD up if the licence is more permissive than GPL?
Who should want to close it up? FreeBSD? Microsoft? Can't see it appealing to either. The permissive licence allows MS employees to work on the code without a lawyer present as is unfortunately the case with GPL code which counts as "tainted".
Microsoft has supplied source patches for running FreeBSD on Azure and they've been accepted. It's akin to providing hardware drivers. Really a case of "move along please, nothing to see".
> no objective reason to run BSD over Linux
As I mentioned in the comments to a much older article, I foolishly bought an HP laptop last year that simply won't run any flavour of Linux reliably. I'm pretty sure it is due to a UEFI/ACPI buggarup, especially since they had to issue a firmware update to support Windows 10.
Last throw of the dice before re-installing Windows was PC-BSD. Runs solidly. No driver for the OE WiFi card (yet), but a supported USB dongle sorts that out.
Mostly they'll be from those who are firmly entrenched in the horrible mind-set of 'Anything Microsoft does is evil'. These are the same kind of people who are akin to those whose religious views are the be-all and end-all of everything, and nothing to the contrary can persuade them otherwise, no sir-ee.
I figure they're less pro FOSS, and just more for hating on a common target to feel like they're doing something useful. New Age Feminists and SJWs are waaaay behind, these guys have been doing it for decades!
the horrible mind-set of 'Anything Microsoft does is evil'.
Yes, but how did this mindset arise?
There is experience, there is discrimination, there is prejudice, and there is bigotry.
Experience shows you that for general practical purposes and algorithmically compressed statement about experience like 'Microsoft sucks' is for most practical purposes and accurate enough assessment of the code, the approach to marketing, and the general attitude towards a captive customer base. That is discrimination.
Extending that to future behaviour, that has not happened - 'Microsoft always sucks, and always will' - is perhaps prejudice. You haven't bothered to look further than the brand in order to associate it firmly with past performance. In fact this prejudice too, is probably on balance functional and effective... You don't change the whole culture of large monolithic organisations overnight.
Bigotry is rather different. Bigotry is not only an algorithmically compressed view of reality, and one which pre-judges it without going to deeply into experience, it is also a dysfunctional view. One that is dangerously at odds with reality.
This, is bigotry. Or humour. Depending.
That Microsoft has engaged in activities which lead people to be enormously suspicious of any moves it makes, is fact. Those suspicions are useful discriminations and they have unfortunately (sic?) led to fully justified prejudice.
However I would claim that the bigotry is usually the province of the Microsoft Astroturfers.
Institutionalised bigotry is a powerful and much used marketing technique.
In fact marketing is by and large the art of getting people to make incorrect prejudicial judgements in the absence of any experience. I.e. Bigotry.
That reminds me...there's a referendum on isn't there?
"Mostly they'll be from those who are firmly entrenched in the horrible mind-set of 'Anything Microsoft does is evil'."
Maybe. Or possibly from the mind-set of 'We've seen some doozies from them where their own name's on the product. How much care will they take when it isn't?'.
how those in the Linux community want everyone to join in and contribute to their preferred operating system... except maybe them over there
Why are you ranting about the Linux community when the article is about FreeBSD? FreeBSD developers generally have no problem whatsoever with commercial use of FBSD, because they know that either the closed product is so niche it doesn't matter or the company will eventually realise that it's easier to merge their generic changes upstream. For example, Netflix has contributed major efficiency improvements to the networking code, which are now available for everybody.
"But then, how many movies and TV programs have had a supposed bad guy turn good at the last minute? It happens, people."
I'm sorry, but.... look, I have to tell you. Most of those TV shows and movies... they're fictional. The latest Marvel blockbuster is designed to provide an entertaining and satisfying narrative arc for the viewers over a two hour period, not to prove anything about real life.
Secondly, as the other guy pointed out, Linux and BSD aren't the same communities and don't share the same approach (see: Endless GPL vs. BSD license holy war discussions).
Of course, not everything MS has done is bad. But given their repeated bad faith "embrace, extend, extinguish" in the past and well-documented abuse of their power, it's not prejudice or bigotry not to trust them, it's common sense.
Any time MS tries giving the impression it's changed, it does something to remind you that, no, they haven't, they've just adapted. For example...
The shameless hypocrisy in running the "Scroogled" campaign (legitimately) attacking Google for violations of privacy, then turning round and releasing Windows 10 which- by default- merrily sends whatever the hell it likes to MS's servers, forces users to tediously check settings to stop this happening and overrides or replaces those settings whenever it feels like it anyway?
The recent GWX debacle that had even mainstream, non-partisan IT publications comparing it to malware in the way it attempts to actively override, obfuscate and weasel its way around users' explicit and repeatedly-expressed desire *not* to install Windows 10, resubmitting updates that had already been rejected, abusing the "security update" categorisation to hide adverts and nagware for Windows 10 (KB 3139929); the fact that you need third-party software to actively enforce and remove MS's attempts to override your will and force the update upon you?
I'll be honest; I used to use Linux sometimes, but hadn't touched it much in recent years, sticking with Windows 7 for regular use at home. I've managed to keep MS's actively hostile attempt to force W10 off my machine so far- mainly by turning updates off, and it still occasionally installs things despite the settings explicitly stating otherwise- but it's clearly not trustworthy and, yeah, I'll be looking at Linux, because there's sure as hell no way I'm running W10 on my own machine except where absolutely necessary.
"I'll be honest; I used to use Linux sometimes, but hadn't touched it much in recent years, sticking with Windows 7 for regular use at home. I've managed to keep MS's actively hostile attempt to force W10 off my machine so far- mainly by turning updates off, and it still occasionally installs things despite the settings explicitly stating otherwise- but it's clearly not trustworthy and, yeah, I'll be looking at Linux, because there's sure as hell no way I'm running W10 on my own machine except where absolutely necessary."
If you do decide to go down that route, I'd suggest trying out the Windows-like Linux Mint Cinnamon, Linux Mint Mate and Zorin via live DVD/USB and then installing your favourite alongside Windows 7 in a dual boot configuration to ease the transition to Linux.
On one hand Microsoft are only doing it for themselves, but on the other hand at least they're (allegedly) going to contribute upstream to FreeBSD. Overall I see this as a good thing; FreeBSD gets a few more contributors and Azure gets a friendly FreeBSD. What's not to like?
Hopefully it won't turn out like Oracle using RedHat source to do their own thing and sod the upstream.
The FreeBSD networking stack has been the 'default' infrastructure networking for Microsoft for many years. Think about it, while SMB is Windows only, TCP/IP, NFS, and other networking protocols and technologies are "Internet" (built on UNIX) technologies which rule the world.
Many Microsoft supporters in USA and elsewhere 'refused' to accept this fact - even as confirmed by Microsoft itself, and only accept pure Microsoft only innovative (yuk) and developed technology, even as such MS technology is broken and/or does not work at all.
Such is the mentality of Microsoft dupes, gladly eating pure MS crap.
What exactly could MS possibly hope to gain by throwing a fork of FBSD on the OS market?
This just appears to be an attempt to make Azure more attractive to BSD admins (and, probably more importantly, to Linux admins who are increasingly p****** off by systemd).
I'm by no means a Microsoft fanboi, but if anything this will give more momentum to FBSD and it is good news.
Satan chosen for closest Beastie resemblance.
People seem to see way too much in this new.
If Microsoft is introducing modules in FreeBSD, could it be that it just wants to ensure that FreeBSD works well in Azure ?
Could it be that it took an interest in FreeBSD because its customers or potential customers were asking for it in Azure?
As other commenters have said, MS have been using bits of Linux for years, and using Linux internally for years as well. Guess they know bare-bones Linux servers perform better than Windows servers at high demand sevices.
This is the first time they've offered a bare-bones Linux distro for servers without all the crud-ware that they pack in Windows. Probably MS will add a Win10-like desktop package to it and flog it as a Linux replacement for Windows 10 for those who hate Real-Win10. Slowly add in crud-ware packages that install themselves by default. Then they'll get Office365 working in Linux so it kills off LibreOffice. Real-Win10 & Win7/8/8.1 gets quietly morphed into Linux-Win10 on existing PCs.
*Then* MS will start pissing in the Linux pool by messing with standards and wresting control of the kernel from Linus so that all other flavors of Linux have to become clones of whatever MS produces so in a decade's time users have a choice of MS-Linux, MS-Linux or OS-X with bits of MS-Linux in it.
Commenter "mark M" unfortunately represents the many dozens or even hundreds of severely ignorant comments on TheRegister and other tech forum about Linux, FreeBSD and other Free/open Source Software (FOSS) over past several years.
Most of these false and illogical comments come from Microsoft shills and dupes who accept any position and - genuine MS only - product out of Redmond, no matter how unreliable, insecure and and convoluted the result.
The USA and international catastrophe of Microsoft offerings have cost the global economies Trillions of $dollars of losses. None of the Microsoft supporting idiots consider this "fact" at all.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
So said a fellow commentard above.
I got burned many years ago learning Java. This was before I went to uni to do a degree. This was me seeing if I could 'hack' it as a programmer.
First I thought 'no bloody way' will I be able to do that. But it fascinated me and like a moth to the flame it drew me in. Polymorphism, Inheritance, Encapsulation, what strange terms, I wonder what they 'really' mean. I was hooked.
I read the API for Delphi of a computer world magazine or some such thing. It drew me in further. I couldn't get the IDE set up for it though being a complete novice and fucktard. Someone suggested Java. I had a look, bought a book, and got tucked in.
I found an IDE that was freely available, also on a computer world magazine. I had a crack at installing it - it worked. So cock-a-hoop was I at this new found technical nirvana, I set to work on my first Hello World. It compiled. You never forget your first Cumpilation! I don't know if it was good for you, but it was bloody fantastic for me. Soon I wasn't just hooked - I was addicted.
I got up at 10am every morning and worked without a break until 4am in the morning - a straight 18 hour hacking run. I stopped for the obvious things (no I didn't have a piss bottle, but I did consider it - don't say you haven't too). It was like nailing dead jelly to the beach, like kicking dead sand down the beach. I loved it. The harder it got, the more tears I shed (yes I cried with frustration - don't say you haven't too). I was compelled. I had a hard copy of The New Hacker's Dictionary, and by jimminy cricket if I wasn't going to become one too.
I marveled at Mel the Real Programmer and his optimum and pessimum. I laughed at the fact they called Pascal a bondage and discipline language - what could they possibly mean by that? I read it word for word, back to front, then back again, and still had no bloody idea what any of them were talking about. But still, reading the book was for fun, when I had access to my rich girlfriend's computer, I worked and learned. Computers were rare in those days. A 200MHz pentium cost 3,000 GBP. I even turned down a holiday in Europe with her just so I could have a few weeks over summer, just me and the computer, learning, working. Trying to see if I was made of the right stuff.
I did this off my own bat. No idea I was going to go to college in a bit to get a degree in this stuff. I was doing it for the hell of it, because I can. And Microsoft 'enabled' me to do that. Thank you Microsoft, from the bottom of my heart. I couldn't have done it without you. Yours was the easiest most available best working IDE to get learning Java with.
Soon I was flying, hacking bits of other people's code to get applets running (you remember 'applets' don't you). Pretty soon I designed and wrote my first program from the ground up using the Java 1.02 SDK, sorry JDK.
My program started to take shape, was coming into life. Me, a computer programmer. Who'd a thunk it uh? It was exhilarating, there was the taste of eastern promise, what new worlds were about to unfold before me?
There was only one slight buzzkill though when I got to this level, or rather, had just got hooked and was just starting to get somewhere with it all - my 'applets' would only work properly in Internet Explorer. That's odd, I said to myself. I must be dong something wrong, dumb noob I am. I'll crack on with the IE all the same coz at least that was working. Thank you Microsoft. I couldn't have done it without you. You really saved my bacon on this one. That shitty Netscape Navigator - amateurs!
The more complex the program got, the less it worked in Netscape Navigator. I was seriously starting to question this cross-platform write once deploy anywhere paradigm, but silly noob I was, I was sure it was me doing something wrong.
By the end of it, the program just flat out refused to run in NN and would only work in IE. NN was all the rage back then, but I had a working prototype that I could reuse the code for later. And reuse it I did.
At college I did it as an assessment, and got a first for it. It utitlised an upgraded JDK API and I remember it being a real pain as they had significantly changed the event handling with the later version. But I got it to work. And I learned. And all was good. And it still wouldn't run anywhere other than bloody Internet fucking Explorer. No one used IE back then if they could help it. Navigator was 'cool'. IE was not. But too late. No going back now.
The IDE that I had been using - J++ I think it was called - had actually made little changes in the compiler, so that it purposely would not be compatible with Netscape. I seem to recall that a few others got burned with this cross-platform write once deploy anywhere environment. It wasn't Java's fault, it was Microsoft's fault. It certainly wasn't my fucking fault.
I got so pissed off with this, that I re-wrote the whole program again in Lingo and deployed it via Macromedia Director. I was already getting into Future Splash (Flash before it was bought out by Macromedia iirc). I got a first for that as well. As I got a first for my fully Flash website, graphics, audio, the works. I had abandoned the promise of Java being compatible by then. Though I did deploy it later for server side scripting and got into Tomcat and servlets and apache and whatnot. I never did get my degree.
So, this is just my little personal experience with the promises that Microsoft make. I certainly can't think of a better example of "embrace, extend, extinguish".
I never did become a programmer either. But such is life, and for once that wasn't Microsoft's fault.
J++ however. Very clever. Spot on marketing. They got me good on that one. They had me doubting my own sanity, blaming my own incompetence (and I was incompetent). And over the years, I still went back for more. You think they can change. The more you double down the deeper in you go, and the harder it is to get back out.
Microsoft know this. It's the whole philosophy behind "embrace, extend, extinguish", and let's be fair, it's certainly worked for them in a big way.
As for their latest foray? I think I have made my point. I shall not be going near it with a ten-foot pole. I wouldn't touch it with... er, I think I really have made my point, so I'll shut up now.
Except to say, Microsoft, thank you for the memories! You really were a class act.
There's a famous graphic doing the rounds of Charlie Steinberg (Steinborg) as a borg. Charlie of Steinberg Cubase fame.
It doesn't seem to be on the 'available' web. It was included in installers for cracks of Cubase (back when Cubase could be cracked). Maybe Charlie boy had it 'Axle Rosed'?
It was pretty funny. I think even Charlie once said it gave him a bit of a chuckle. But he had the last chuckle what with Cubase not being cracked since v5. I think it's safe to say the dongle has more than done its job by now.
It was a play on the Bill Gates borg allusion.
The funny thing is, Steinberg were just a small(ish) company trying to survive. I think the parallel came as much from the play on words than it did any accusation that they were trying to take over the world, as opposed to just keeping the ship afloat with a few dozen top-class programmers, and a fair few more employees who relied on it to remain so.
Bill, still isn't satisfied. It just isn't funny any more.
I must dig out one of those Radium or H20 cracks from yonks back, pretty funny they were.
Me? I pay for my software. Yes, even Cubase (no choice).
Maybe you had to be there.
Anyway, here's Karl Charlie Steinberg's homepage:
It's a rollicking good read.
God, even the crackers that can't crack the dongle love Charlie.
I wonder, can the same be said of Bill or Ballmer or any of the others?
History is about to be written for the first time, for the last time.
When we are all finally assimilated, history will cease to exist.
Maybe then, and only then, they will be happy.
If Microsoft Windows is so 'wonderful' or even very good, as incessantly claimed over years by Microsoft dupes, why has the company developed, first it's own "GNU/Linux as previously officially reported and now FreeBSD - to run inside Microsoft Azure Cloud no less, as a UNIX-like 'on top of' Windows to support who??
Furthermore the BSD license copyright of FreeBSD would allow Microsoft to fully use and deploy FreeBSD _/"without"/_ having to "_/fork" /_the operating system (OS) at all. Sick approach!
There are not millions of FreeBSD server workloads that "need" support under Azure, since this and Linux/Azure combinations are overly complex and error prone solutions to problems for which there are significantly better solutions - NIX only - than do not include Windows and Azure at all.
This convoluted technology approach makes no sense, especially as publicly expressed by highest regarded technology experts in many of largest technology entities - corporations, academia and research institutions in USA and Internationally.
Most knowledgeable (meaning not limited to Microsoft only) expert technologists will probably puke on hearing the usual diarrhea of the mouth from Redmond slavish minions.
You seem horribly confused, so let me help you out.
Microsoft's interest in offering FreeBSD is to allow companies that use it to migrate to Azure. They pay money for hosting their servers, which makes the company and its shareholders happy.
If you are going to host an unfamiliar OS, you need to make some changes to make sure it runs well on your platform, integrates with the various management and monitoring pieces, can consume other Azure services etc. Yes, we know... "EEE" and all that fucktardary, but the FreeBSD folk are free to take or leave any code that Microsoft contribute.
As for why anyone would want to move their FreeBSD workloads into Azure? I imagine capital cost savings, rapid provisioning and scaling, pay for only what you use, access to big fucking network pipes etc would all make the list - but probably the most compelling reason for most businesses is that they wouldn't have to suffer snotty little oiks like you anymore ;-)
Commenter "azaks" is totally ignorant about many of the technical configurations and uses of non-Microsoft Os inside Azure.
Active Directory, Docker and the NIX Virtualization generally work poorly as a subsystem under Azure, and many other critical NIX Cloud administration functionality does not work at all under Azure.
If a corporation, government agency or other entity wishes to run FreeBSD based work loads in a Cloud environment, those not Microsoft contract obligated will chose more "reliable", "significantly more secure" and better priced Cloud solutions on Redhat similar robust Openstack based cloud computing services than on Azure, especially for advanced File management and Docker containerization, only 2 examples of required technologies not available from Microsoft.
Who wants a convoluted Microsoft spaghetti meshup solution for Cloud other than clients with Microsoft hands on purse strings..
That's quite funny - you accuse me of ignorance and yet all you do is hand-wave without providing a single specific that shows you know what you are talking about. At least you had the decency to put quotes around some of your hand-waving, but I think "generally work poorly" and "many other" deserve quotes too.
Not sure what you mean by "advanced file management" (more hand-waving?) but whatever file systems and tools are available to your distro can be used (and Azure has had Docker for the last 2 years)
ZFS and btrfs file systems for FreeBSD and linux respectively - world better in performance, reliability than Microsoft ResFS file system. Docker "only came to Windows" as native technology in last 10 months, and docker developers themselves state that containerization works significantly better on Linux base than Windows base. Cloud and networking Administration tools for UNIX/Linux do not work well or at all under Microsoft;s tools or Active directory and specific docker container admin tools.
Check CoreOS business , a major core contributor to Docker for details on how lame Docker is on Windows, or check information sources from Cisco.
FFS - try and understand that you can run native Linux/FreeBSD in Azure. Its a Linux VM - you can install whatever the fuck you want on it. You can install any FS you want, you can use Docker, you can install any management tools you want. There are web and CLI interfaces to manage your Linux VMs - you don't need to use any Windows tools at all if you don't want to. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this - its all on the web if you bother to educate yourself?
This post has been deleted by its author
Old news.. From Windows 2000, on M$ has stole non-GPL source code from the world. The first *I* noticed was the TCP/IP stack win Win2k, as well as tons of other binaries. Just go into any C:\Windows\system32\ dir and do a "findstr 'Berkeley' " and see what you find. It's been there for at least 16yrs.
So sure, Microsoft loves Open Source. They only hate GPL.. because they love to take, and hate to share.
This post has been deleted by its author
From Windows 2000, on M$ has stole non-GPL source code from the world. The first *I* noticed was the TCP/IP stack win Win2k, as well as tons of other binaries. Just go into any C:\Windows\system32\ dir and do a "findstr 'Berkeley' "
That's not stealing. That's what the BSD licence allows you to do. BSD developers specifically promote this behaviour - it's the root of all the "GPL vs. BSD licence" arguments.
"....That's what the BSD licence....." Yeah, shame that FreeBSD now comes encumbered with that cack called ZFS and its proprietary history. It's why I stopped using FreeNAS after version 7. If it ever becomes commercially successful in any form then Larry Ellison will send his legal eagles out to fund a new yatch. I'm avoiding FreeBSD until a truly open alternative like Hammerv2 or BTRFS is properly integrated.
Which acronyms are you referring to? I'll just take a wild stab in the dark and tell you that FreeBSD stands for Freely (available) Berkeley Software Distribution.
I always have this complaint when I see SMB, or other soft (not software) business term acronyms
This can mean only one thing - Microsoft Engineers will now start (or presumably have started) mucking about with the internals of the awesome FreeBSD kernel, which has so far been free of large corporate meddling (to my non-authoritative knowledge).
.... PREPARE TO REPEL BOARDERS!
Calm down people. This is not a MS-BSD or a Microsoft version of FreeBSD. It is just Microsoft releasing Azure Cloud Services (ACS) software for the FreeBSD operating system. The same thing was said back a few months ago when they did the same thing for Linux. From what I understand, it's just a few device drivers so FreeBSD will run under Hyper-V, and the ACS software that runs on top of the kernel. They did the same thing with Linux, specifying Debian Linux (although I think Ubuntu has made that list as well) as the tested and endorsed platform.
So, nothing to see here folks, calm down and move along.
Ah, my bad. Last I was looking at it, fairly casually, I saw mostly Ubuntus, AMIs and even some Windows stuff. Missed the BSDs :(
I stand corrected, but still think BSDs have a massive visibility gap in cloud & vm stuff. Vagrant/Chef seems to be mostly about Ubuntu for example. You are right in that it exists, but if you don't know to look for it, it is easy to miss. Azure usage is bound to improve that.
Take any combination of Googling <tech> ubuntu vs <tech> freebsd. Where tech in chef/vagrant/aws. You'll see 2x-3x the hits, easy, on the ubuntu searches. I assume it would be even worse on a specific Stackoverflow search.
Anyway, learned something, thx.
When are they going to dump NT and switch over to FreeBSD. Harmon.ie Mainsoft has done most of the work for them.
Classic Mac OS was a usable OS, but Apple switched to Dariwn. The case for Microsoft switching to FreeBSD or other BSD or Unix is much more urgent. Using the WINE approach rather than adding Linux syscalls to NT is the correct approach for addressing Microsoft's unique security problems.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021