We know 'Linux is a cancer' but could CentOS chaos spell opportunity for Microsoft? Azure Linux is Microsoft's take on the open source operating system. It is primarily used for internal purposes, but could it become (yet another) distribution option? Directions on Microsoft analyst Mary Jo Foley suggests the distribution, tuned to be lightweight and secure, has the potential to reach a wider audience. …
Persuading these same admins that Microsoft can be a trustworthy Linux partner is a challenge that should not be underestimated.
Not a challenge. It is an impossibility. MS has a very clear MO and has shown it for many years. Using their "own" distro just means that they will squeeze incompatible bits into it so that you will be locked in, again.
You never trust a thief with your keys... or do you?
Persuading these same admins that Microsoft can be a trustworthy Linux partner is a challenge that should not be underestimated.
Fixed if for you :) Sadly they can't even be depended on for Windows partnerships any more.
Using their "own" distro just means that they will squeeze incompatible bits into it so that you will be locked in, again.
We already have that with RedHat's pushing of systemd on to an already suffering world.
The difference here is that systemd is available in many (indeed most) linux distributions, as it is FOSS in nature, so systemd itself does not lock anyone into the RedHat ecosystem. I think the comment you are responding to has other quite valid concerns, regarding totally proprietary code being inserted as core functionality into Azure Linux.
Telemetry won't be a concern for enterprise customers. They are already running Active Directory and tens of thousands of Windows desktops. Then they are running RedHat on servers and paying for support agreements.
If they want to get Azure Linux in large businesses, all they need to do is make it free to use, release Docker images and provide support contracts that include virtualization (VM, docker, Kubernetes) without having to audit inventories and pay per 'server'.
They aren't running Linux due to a concern about Windows server. They are doing it because of the cost of Windows server. Particularly when you're deploying virtualized farms.
Why would they care anything about telemetry when they're migrating to o365 and Entra ID?
In an enterprise data centre you can probably configure the firewall to prevent this kind of thing but I wouldn't expect it to really put sys admins off. What would and will continue to do so is Microsoft's appalling record of software releases including its proprietary and open source stuff. Teams are continually being reassigned and support dropped in the most reckless way. This is often as frustrating for those involved who make valuable contributions as anything else.
Google is by no means and angel but has a much better track record on the open source projects it stewards and contributes to. Of course, it puts its own commercial interests first, but it invests in code auditing vulnerability scanning. Microsoft should be aiming to be better than this and, until it can credibly demonstrate this, its offerings should be avoided.
A lot depends on what it is running,
From what I see I have customers running 100s of Linux VMs as part of web services, often many smaller instances.
If you look at what you get on the "Free Tier", you can get a functional Linux VM or a next to useless Windows VM.
That is also going to have an influence.
I don't get this constant sniping from either side and the concept that someone has "won".
Neither is perfect by a long way and if you want enterprise level support and contracts then you are buying commercial distributions. I see little difference between say Red Hat & Microsoft.
Red Hat simply don't offer all the other services that Microsoft do with O365 in particular that has become the defacto choice for businesses. Other companies tried to provide competing products or open source alternatives however at a corporate level companies were not prepared to buy into those solutions. It is all about risk and for many the cost of paying for something that many on El Reg see as an abomination is outweighed by the benefits.
The more recent changes wrapping everything into Edge and generally screwing it up more & at a faster rate may make people question choices however what are the alternatives?
Google Workspace is the only real direct competitor and I don;t see that as being radically different from a vendor perspective.
So much end user data has been pushed into cloud services for convenience and so called financial efficiency there is unlikely to be a mass exodus back to on-prem.
Many no longer have the datacentres, skills or the space to do it. That is is shite compared to on-prem is a different issue that only techies worry about.
BSABSVM garbage.
Windoze is far worse than ANY Linux.
And only fools buy "enterprise level" anything. "Enterprise level" is ClownStrike and Micro$hit, and all your computers going down for days. What's that contract get you? Save your stupid ass, did it? LOL
The smart thing to do is go full free software, not pay for "support" that you'll never actually get if something goes wrong. Now, I know lots of "enterprise level" IT people are utter fools who love wasting money on "support" contracts that aren't worth the bits they're printed on, but I just don't get it. You think your job is safe when you've paid for support? Nope, you're either fired or in the next layoff when something goes wrong, doesn't matter if you had a full free software stack or had the worthless "contract".
As for me, I'll keep rooting out those worthless "contracts" wherever I find them, and they get canceled as fast as I can rip and replace.
... there's also this good read from a few days ago: What Microsoft’s Borking of Grub Says About Redmond’s ‘Love’ of Linux by Christine Hall
I haven't had the specific issue reported by other users, but I was surprised as hell to find out that a Windows update had gone into my UEFI BIOS and changed the boot order so that, instead of pointing at the drive where grub is installed, my system was booting from the drive where the Windows bootloader was installed. Fixing the issue was trivial, but it had never previously dawned on me that Windows (and presumably other operating systems) had access to change UEFI settings.
"it had never previously dawned on me that Windows (and presumably other operating systems) had access to change UEFI settings."
Separate from IGotOut's comment about OSes being able to change the UEFI code (firmware), regarding the UEFI boot setting (Boot variables), how did you think the boot variable for Windows (for example) was created/set in the first place if not by Windows itself when it was installed?
On Linux typically you can use the "efibootmgr" CLI utility to view/add/delete/change UEFI Boot variables.
CentOS was a cheap-n-dirty rip of RHEL. Companies that wanted an enterprise-level linux, but were too *ing cheap to buy RHEL, used CentOS.
Those customers aren't going to start ponying up money to Microsoft (and having to change scripts/etc to match the new distro). They're just going to migrate to something like Rocky, which is the new free-RHEL distro.
Why?
When Alma Linux and Rocky Linux are free and have well documented upgrade paths (and tools) from CentOS?
I have moved all my CentOS servers to either Alma or Rocky this year. No real issues at all. Those that hit me were of my own making.
No need to pony up even a bent penny unless you want to contribute like many Linux related projects.
Moving to Debian is a very sensible option, given the fact that Red Hat has made it clear that they want to put a stop to copycat distros like Alma and Rocky. So far, both distributions have been able to work around the roadblocks that Red Hat have put in place, but there is no guarantee that they will be able to continue to do so.
Isn't it the case that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just another Linux distribution that mainly just builds and packages existing Linux software from third parties? I don't think Red Hat can stop someone from building and packaging the same software after they get it from the same sources RHEL gets it from, which at least AlmaLinux says is what it does. Incidentally, with the result that in one or two cases AlmaLinux has already released critical patches faster than RHEL.
< "Isn't it the case that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just another Linux distribution that mainly just builds and packages existing Linux software from third parties?"
Not really, no. Red Hat have many paid developers on staff, writing their own software and making changes to 3rd party software included in the distro. Many of the packages available in other distros are actually developed by Red Hat. They are also one of the largest contributors to the linux kernel and numerous 3rd party open-source projects. They purchase the codebases of proprietary software and use it in house and/or release it as open source. Now that they no longer make the RHEL source code or configuration files available to non-customers, there is no longer any way to truly be sure that everything in Alma or Rocky is 100% compatible with RHEL. Being 100% compatible with RHEL was the main reason people used Alma and Rocky in production, because lots of proprietary 3rd party linux software is only supported on RHEL, so having perfect compatibility was a way for non Red Hat customers to be sure that they could purchase this 3rd party software and be able to run it. Red Hat does not want this, as it cuts into their bottom line, and they will likely do whatever they can to ensure the copycats are no longer compatible, so as to lock in existing customers and draw in new ones. They have made moves in this direction for a while, but it's only gotten worse since IBM purchased Red Hat, 5 or 6 years ago I think it was. Regardless of what their PR teams are pushing, IBM is not really a fan of open source, and they absolutely hate a fair fight.
>Well, the GPL forces Redhat to provide the sources for packages it distributes.
And the GPL also gives RedHat the sources for those packages for free.
Still not entirely sure how RedHat have the right to restrict who then gets the sources it distributes - but RedHat have more lawyers than me.
It just means I don't run RedHat
Red Hat are arguing that sure, they'll give you the source code for your current version, but they'll also terminate your support contract if you ever actually use the rights afforded you by the GPL.
Which is almost certainly an unlawful breach of the GPL but proving that would be quite expensive and it's not totally clear who has standing. It'd also be the end of Red Hat if they lost as they'd lose access to the GPL components for breach of license, so you can be certain they would put absolutely everything they have into defending it.
Same as SCO did - and that saga dragged on for decades.
So it's cheaper to simply switch distros and starve RH to death than to sue.
> Well, the GPL forces Redhat to provide the sources for packages it distributes.
Have you *read* it? Read it. It's not very long.
What is says is: if you provide software, you must provide its source code TO YOUR USERS.
(My emphasis.)
Only to its users. Not to the world. And for a paid distro, users = customers.
> CentOS simply rebuilds them and changes any Redhat branding.
That was true... 20 years ago.
>What is says is: if you provide software, you must provide its source code TO YOUR USERS.
> Only to its users. Not to the world. And for a paid distro, users = customers.
.
.
GPL clause 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these
terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
.
My understanding was that Redhat's contract limits its users from passing on the source code and fixes they receive - which would seem to be in violation of the GPL.
"CentOS was a cheap-n-dirty rip of RHEL."
You say that like it's a bad thing, so many of us were able to learn exactly how RHEL worked before we got RHEL based jobs and advised companies on how best to use RHEL. So you can insult CentOS all you like but my family, my IFA and my pension providers all benefitted bigtime from my hugely increased earnings by learning on CentOS and then working with RHEL proper. I even have two CentOS branded t-shirts somewhere that I bought to lend some support to CentOS during it's heyday.
These days I use the "bastard child" of CentOS and also advise people use "rip-off" ( your phrase not mine! ) Rocky in orer to learn RHEL so they can prep for proper admin life in enterprise Linux and hopefully have a fulfilling and profitable career like me.
It is not unexpected for Microsoft to have their own distro so they are in control. It's unlikely to spread beyond its use case (Azure) unless it has some magical properties all the other ones miss (and can overcome the brand issue).
If you're worried about Microsoft's effect on Linux (3E etc), look at who is working on the kernel and the core libraries, and who is paid by microsoft.
In the end Linux is software, defined by code, defined by those who implement it.
Sure, there will be lkml discussions on key decisions, but at this point a big part of the work on Linux is done by 'pay as you need'.
That is not necessarily bad (tm), until one company becomes a dominating factor or locks down Linux by tying it to proprietary or monolithic components it controls (potentially SB/Sys-D).
If you want to move away from that, you will need someone else to pick up the tab.
Some countries are investing in open source as a strategic commitment (as well they should), there is no reason you cannot fund engineers from UKRI/NSERC/Horizon/NIH programs to shore up key infrastructure.
RT Linux is now coming (or few days ago depending on upstream), that has major implications for national infrastructure, so why not lean into it. Pay a few key maintainers for the work they do that invisibly makes society work. Perhaps not as well paid as big tech, but there are ways of making that up by govt (tax, benefits, pensions). In terms of budgets it's a best a rounding error on the rounding error.
If you don't, others defined by VC/greed will, and there may be happy accidental benefits, but greed never leads to anything good in the long term.
Let us not forget Oracle Linux. Among their DB users who like to drop it onto Linux, their own flavour offers increased support business, as well as helping to keep PostgreSQL migration at bay. In other words, lock-in.
Some big corporates have taken that plunge, so if MS can offer their own Linux migration path, it all helps to rescue those poor Oracle victims and lead them to the SharePoint light.
Of course since Oracle Linux is/was based on CentOS, placing your bets must be an interesting challenge.
Icon for both parties.
Oracle Linux has always used upstream Red Hat SRPMs, it has never been based on CentOS, ever.
There's both a plus and a negative to Oracle Linux: They actually fix bugs that Red Hat doesn't, especially in the toolchain (gcc, binutils, libc). The plus is that bugs are fixed, the negative is that it means it is no longer 100% bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL. Is this normally a problem? No, but for some people it might be.
> Persuading these same admins that Microsoft can be a trustworthy Linux partner is a challenge that should not be underestimated.
“We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
-------
Meanwhile from the last forced update:
a. The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x0000001a
--
b. Installation Failure: Windows failed to install the following update with error 0x800F0952: 2024-08 Cumulative Update for Windows 10 Version 22H2 for x64-based Systems (KB5041580).
--
c. Package KB5041580 failed to be changed to the Installed state. Status: 0x8007000d.
--
d. taskhostw (4376,R,98) WebCacheLocal: The shadow header page of file ..\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\WebCache\V01.chk was damaged. The primary header page (4096 bytes) was used instead.
Azure Linux isn't the only Linux distro Microsoft maintains, you know. It's a nice enough general purpose server OS, and I have used it myself, but if you want something to run your containers on (be they Azure Linux or whatever), then Flatcar is your friend. Don't trust Microsoft enough to run it? Then build it yourself! It's developed entirely in the open as a community project. It's also a Gentoo Linux derivative, so yes, Microsoft does pay someone to work on Gentoo some of the time.
I currently work in a large MS shop working on the Solaris and Linux systems, no one is allowed to have a desktop that isn't Windows so WSL is the one place where we Unix admins can still practice our (dirty) craft under the nose of the Windows Desktop Stazi, stack Docker Desktop on top and you have a whole host of Linux goodness right under the MS zealot's noses!
Not sure why some are lamenting the EOL of CentoOS-7. AlmaLinux offers a free tool called ELevate-leapp to migrate from CentOS-7 to five other distros, including AlmaLinux-8. I have used it more than a dozen times to migrate some large CentOS-7 systems, and it never failed once.
If they certified it as 100 percent compatible with WSL2, could be very good. Azure Linux and WSL2 both use the Microsoft SMB client rather than Samba.
Would be nice if they included loadlibrary in the kernel for DLL loading
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
