Re: History repeats; full of examples...
> If you don't like their product, don't buy it. Simples.
Not that simple - in many cases it's forced upon us by senior management, regardless of whether it's the best tool for a given job.
216 posts • joined 2 Jul 2014
> Nobody was force to use IE.
Yes they were - for a while it was only only browser that worked for a good portion of the web, as websites prioritised supporting IE over web standards.
> The complaint was from companies who wanted to sell copies of their own browsers.
Somewhat; the other big issue with the web's dependence on IE was that is in turn created a dependence on Windows, as nothing else could run IE. So effectively the web was in danger of becoming locked to a single vertically-integrated platform stack. Fortunately the world has managed to move on, however Microsoft still pull the same tricks with vertical integration - for example two decades later many of their web services still only work properly in a single browser.
The big difference between not and then is that they've just finally figured out how to incorporate open source into their business model.
Apart from the licensing craziness in TFA, this is the other reason I don't get why anyone would run SQL Server containers in Windows. My understanding is that the container runs SQL Server for Linux, which is a Windows app running on shims to translate Linux API calls (pretty much the inverse of WSL v1), then that in turn gets executed within a Linux kernel running in a VM on Windows, which in most cases is probably also virtualised on another hypervisor layer in the datacenter. That goes against the entire premise of running containers for efficiency.
> Open Source, you dont have to licence it, but if if it breaks you will want support and you may have to pay based on every physical core evrywhere in your estate, just in case.
Or you simply pay for support for the dev environment, reproduce the issue, apply the fix, test, then apply the same fix to production. A lot of folks run a mix of RHEL and CentOS following this same model. Much more cost effective than paying for absolutely everything, and avoids the continual wasted time of accounting for it all.
> Once again, just because you don't have to pay licenses for it.
Wrong. I know of nobody who uses Linux because it is free, except in business where using it at scale on servers saves a fortune over proprietary offerings.
Remember that desktop Windows for home use is free also.
All Linux desktop users I know of prefer it over Windows, myself included. And the few of us who need the odd commercial app not supported in Linux paid for a Mac and are happy with that too. And I speak as a previously devout Windows fan from 3.1 through to Vista.
Different strokes for different folks; deriding others over their own choice of OS is silly, especially when combined with arguments that don't hold water.
> Think about all those Active Directories goodies for free - something Linux still sorely lacking for whatever is not a public web server....
IPA for Linux just works and is a very fine solution. There's no direct equivalent of GPO though, but plenty of exceptionally capable CM tools out there as alternatives.
Software patents are unnecessary. Copyrights prevent software from being copied, unless the original author permits it. If you write software and don't want someone to copy it, that system already works. If someone figures out another way to implement the same thing with their own unique code, that's perfectly fine too, as it should be.
Functional devices can't be copyrighted, so we have patents instead - if you publicly document the workings (implementation) of a widget via a patent, in exchange you get a temporary legal monopoly for producing it. If someone comes up with a different method for doing the same thing they quite likely won't infringe the patent. If you don't patent it then anyone is free to copy or adapt the implementation.
Software patents on the other hand often prevent others from implementing something even if they don't have access to the inner workings (source code) and come up with their own unique implementation. This concept is absurd and is why patents don't translate well to software. Perhaps if software patents made working example source code a mandatory part of submission then they would better reflect their traditional counterparts, so that others would be able to invent their own non-infringing implementations.
You nailed it. This move is great PR plus it means exFAT support will become standard issue in Android, further cementing it as a standard.
Android vendors mostly don't bother at the moment as it's currently an extra cost that eats into already thin margins. The completely proprietary implementations (e.g. cameras) still need to pay.
It's also low risk; at this point MS have well passed recovering any R&D costs involved in developing the format, and with cloud services bringing in the real revenue it's not really a big deal if the proportionately small income stream from exFAT starts to dry up a bit.
This is only a good thing. Although overdue, better late than never. I really never thought I'd see it this soon.
It's clever too; my understanding of this is that it's only open source implementations that are protected from patents. It's likely that proprietary implementations (e.g. in cameras) still need to pay fees, so if anything this move may help push exFAT adoption and in turn wring more money out of those implementing exFAT but not wishing to join the open source bandwagon. Just a theory.
It's because Microsoft understands that 'aaS' offerings are where its bread is buttered now. Linux dominates servers, so much better to properly support that and make buckets of money by hosting it and providing good tools for devs than ignoring it and missing a huge slice of cloud market. Azure would be less than half the size it is now if Microsoft chose to ignore Linux.
Totally agree that Windows DNS is rubbish for any serious work, but it does function. If you've got the time and resources of course it's possible to put together a far better solution for DHCP/DNS than Windows and often for less cost, but orgs who lack ability probably don't know what they are missing with it anyway and for them it's quick, easy and does in fact work perfectly well enough.
I repeat: horses for courses.
As a Linux guy at heart I somewhat agree with your sentiments, but for MS-centric shops there's little to gain from deploying ISC just to do DHCP and then trying to train admins who often have little mroe than MS certification how to drive it. Whether it's good or not is fairly subjective, but this is just how things are for many orgs.
It's extremely common in Windows-centric corporate environments using Active Directory, and in those cases it makes perfect sense as you check a box and DHCP just works with dynamic DNS updates and all the trimmings.
Yes Windows DHCP is a bit less flexible than the likes of ISC DHCP if you want to get into more advanced functionality, but in the above cases the time and effort saved more than makes up for the difference.
As always, horses for courses.
> Adobe have pretty much said they hate Linux and will NEVER port Photoshop
I wouldn't say that's entirely true - never say never!
> Don't you ever notice such behaviour in the past twenty years? How do you believe people not using a mouse go back?
> Or you're quite new to those things called "browsers"?
I've been using "browsers" for over 20 years. It's been a long time since I've used one where the backspace key went a page backwards, probably some old version of IE. It's a silly feature anyway as it's prone to accidents when focus moves out of a text field so I don't miss it in the slightest.
> honestly, MS would be fine. They're big into Linux and open source and still a heavily pro-engineering company.
> Companies like Oracle and IBM are about nothing but making money. Which is why they're both going down the tubes. No-one who doesn't already have them goes near them.
Disagree - all three are about making money, and all three are 'into' Linux in some shape or form. The only difference that separates Microsoft from the other two is that it has an enormous and entrenched marketshare in consumer and enterprise client computing that the other two don't. The downside to MS grabbing RH is that it would further reduce the options available for commercially supported 'enterprise' OS vendors. Those tech big companies have too much power as it is.
This is no surprise - Microsoft is very specific in terms of how it 'loves' Linux and all of them involve revenue. Microsoft supports Linux in terms of:
1. Allowing users to run Linux apps on their own desktop OS (Windows 10). This helps keep devs on their platform (revenue stream) who might have otherwise moved on.
2. Ensuring Linux VMs run well in their hypervisor. This is purely a play at Azure - MS knows that the majority of Internet platforms use some form of FOSS stack and that isn't changing any time soon. Better to embrace and provide somewhere to host it reliably (i.e. Azure). That makes up half of Azure now, and is steadily increasing. That's at least double the Azure revenue than would be the case without good Linux support.
3. Supporting expensive but niche products like SQL Server on Linux. Once again, new opportunities for revenue in terms of SQL Server licensing.
4. Enterprise is heavily entrenched in Microsoft, of which one factor is that the whole stack is designed around itself (some might call this vendor lock-in). This represents a big, steady revenue stream.
Producing an 'enterprise' client app such as SfB or Teams for the Linux desktop sets a (very small) precedent for validating the Linux desktop as a viable enterprise option. This in turn threatens (albeit lightly) number four above with little to gain in return. No wonder there is little incentive for them to make this a reality at this time. Eventually as the revenue model moves more towards cloud then this will matter less to them, so no doubt far down the track we might see some progress.
> Still, that'd be one way of getting WiFi working properly in "Linux". All the Windows device drivers would be available.
Funny, I've had more issues dealing with WiFi in Windows (usually from patches) than Linux. That said I blame the issues on both platforms squarely on the WiFi chipset vendors.
> exactly my point on here, Microsoft does it - out come the penguins on a rant
> anyone else does it - silence
Incorrect - they are all taking the piss. Apple on iOS. MS with their apps (Cortana, now Mail, etc). Google with things like Hangouts.
All are user-hostile decisions.
> But I honestly don't have the time to manage hundreds of individual client IPs like that. Set up the servers. Maintain a list of their IPs. Done.
Neither do I, or even have the time to maintain lists of IPs. It's called IPAM and most decent provisioning/lifecycle tools automate all that. Bootstrap new systems via DHCP (for PXE) then have them reconfigure themselves with the same static address as they build. Let the tool take care of assignments and managing leases. Easy as pie. If you need to bulk update changes such as DNS then that's what tools like Ansible are for; change one line in a playbook, test, commit, job done.
Servers shouldn't rely on DHCP - in fact servers should rely on as little external services as possible to sustain their operation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020