Microsoft embraces GPL, opens Hyper-V to Linux with LinuxIC

@azerthoth

Quoting:With the small exception of the fact that the code they released, the released under the GPL.

I don't understand which point of mine you're attempting to refute with that statement. Could you elaborate?

Hey herzeleid & tuxchick,

Don't be sore heads. justintime has it exactly right. Remember you do not want to sully the name of either Linux of FlOSS in general. So go by these verities:

      1. The Mafia is not going to disappear. Got it?

      2. They rightly demand respect, or you get your knees bent.

      3. Complaining makes us look like sore losers.

      4. Citing past criminal behaviour means you live in the past. Stop it if you want to continue living.

      5. Forget History when it is so much fun to relive the past.

I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the sagaciousity of JIT, what more could be asked from a compiler? So techie.

YBT

What I want to know is, in what way is GPLed Code dangerous?

Microsoft released this as GPLed code because they had to. The whole point of making it possible to run Linux on Hyper-V is to sell more Hyper-V licenses, because it they don't do it Windows Admins will use VMWare or Virtual box, neither of which generates license income for microsoft.

@TxTEdMacs - As usual, your logic is irrefutable.

TA - Patents. I doubt there is any here, but MS could try to control the code the submitted via patents. I would guess that if that is the case then the patches won't get approved and included in the kernel.

It seems the whole purpose of this release is to prevent people from migrating to a different Virtualization server, or to bring new people to use MS' solution.

The only problem I can see here is that if you are wanting Linux and Windows in a virtualized environment, why run it on Windows instead of Linux. If you are running it on Windows, you get the security and stability of Windows. Seems illogical to me.

Quoting:What I want to know is, in what way is GPLed Code dangerous?

Microsoft released this as GPLed code because they had to.

Conversation in the legal department:

"What does the GPL mean?"

"Whatever you want it to, Mr. Ballmer."

Quoting:why run it on Windows instead of Linux

Because many companies already have Hyper-V servers and they want their non-SLES Linux to run fast. Remember, SLES isn't that big. Many companies prefer Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian or something else. If they can't run it on Hyper-V then they're going to install some Xen or VirtualBox server, and later on they will discover that running Windows on Xen or Windows on VirtualBox is just as fast as running Windows on Hyper-V.

Microsoft doesn't want their Hyper-V customers moving to Xen or VirtualBox. Also, they cannot cut deals like the SLES deal to get their drivers into the many different distributions that their Hyper-V customers want to use. So the only viable alternative is contributing those drivers to the mainline kernel.

@tracyanne The fact that Microsoft is doing this because they have to doesn't mean they won't try any shenanigans later. The fact they have to do this in order to keep their virtualization offering from being a last place finisher after VMWare, Red Hat and Novell's, amongst others shows that Linux is starting to get some traction into the enterprise data center. Enough that the PHBs who make the purchasing decisions notice, not just the techies.

@Sander I agree with your arguments why and that it isn't feasible for them to try to cut deals with all the other distros besides SLES. The only argument I'd have is that not it appears that not very many companies have Hyper-V servers. Even many Windows-Centric shops have chosen VMWare, Xen or other products instead. It isn't just MS trying to retain market share it is trying to address why Hyper-V has failed to generate much. By most estimates I've seen its at least a distant 3rd or 4th place right now despite aggressive marketing on Microsoft's part. Microsoft doesn't like to be that far back, especially in their own OS customer base. Microsoft historically has been used to showing up late for the party with a poor product and then use a massive advertising campaign to fool management types that they invited everyone in the first place long enough to play catch up. Signs are starting to show that this sort of reactionary "immovation" (imitation claimed to be innovation) isn't working as well as it used to.

> ...which means a move away from Microsoft products,

> ...because it they don't do it Windows Admins will use VMWare or Virtual box, neither of which generates license income for microsoft.

Exactly. And perhaps equally importantly, products which are multi-platform, unlike Microsoft's offerings. Once you've settled on using VirtualBox or VMWare, it's a small step to not running them under Windows.

> Even many Windows-Centric shops have chosen VMWare,

Yes, VMWare seems to be the default choice at most businesses. The one I work at is a prime example. It's very Microsoft centric, but the virtualization boxes are all VMWare.

> So the only viable alternative is contributing those drivers to the mainline kernel.

VirtualBox doesn't have their Linux kernel host or guest modules in the mainline kernel. Other than brownie points, I can't quite decide why Microsoft would have to do it the way they have chosen.

Maybe they don't think that Microsoft customers are going to know how to compile a Linux kernel module?

> Other than brownie points, I can't quite decide why Microsoft would have to do it the way they have chosen.

The obviously want the drivers in the mainline kernel, and they know they'll never get in unless they're GPL'ed. As to why they want that, I couldn't say.

Now there is food for thought, have a nice hidden patent somewhere, submit code under GPL, pop out the patent.

az, and then MS could fund a shell corp. to sue themselves for a patent violation! I love it. Something with a nautical theme, like SCOW.

> Now there is food for thought, have a nice hidden patent somewhere, submit code under GPL, pop out the patent.

Since they're the patent holder and they're the ones submitting the code, I'd think a court would rule that the obvious intent of submitting the code was to grant an automatic patent license to the user. Of course, with a court you never know for certain.

I'm not clear on that. If MS holds a software patent and releases the patent infested code under GPL 2, they could still sue? As long as you distribute the code they've written, according to their license, I'm not seeing the grounds to sue. Maybe I'm missing something as I find these issues very boring.

azerthoth: you realize that they would be suing their own customers, right? The drivers are to allow their Hyper-V customers to run Linux in their VM on a Windows desktop/server.

Then there's the fact that Microsoft would have infringed their own patents as they were the ones who contributed it to the Linux kernel in the first place.

All in all, that conspiracy theory is lacking in realism. Hopefully it was meant in jest, as a mockery of Roy Schestowitz's conspiracy theories or some such.

bigg: no, they could not sue.

Even if they could, it would be a PR disaster for them.

How did you know I was thinking of Roy when I wrote that? oh, the shiny tin foil hat I was wearing.

Yea, the tinfoil hat gave it away ;-)