why not? it's not like there is any competition.
Microsoft is making more money off Linux with Azure than several red hats combined.
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
47758 readers
881 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, but people find this interesting because historically, Microsoft was actively trying to destroy Linux (look up Halloween documents) and even said that Linux is cancer.
Windows: What is my purpose?
User: You are a bootloader to install Linux.
Oh my god
"An expensive bootloader at that, but hey you already paid us when you bought your laptop thanks to our decades-old grip on the market, so we could not care less what you do next"
While I see an extensive amount of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and do agree that this is the typical logic of Microsoft.
It's obvious this is to try and avoid getting hit with similar monopoly accusations that their competitors are receiving.
"Look, Look!! We support other Operating Systems! We have a guide! We're not a monopoly! See, See!!"
The performance speed between WSL, virtual machines, and bare metal Linux has become so close that few developers choose this method due to the overhead of needing to restart (reboot) your device any time you want to switch between the operating systems.
And there's the attempt at discouraging you from going bare-metal.
I doubt that "few developers choose this" is true.
Great! Then now you're ready to install Microsoft Edge on your fresh new linux installation: https://packages.microsoft.com/repos/edge/pool/main/m/microsoft-edge-stable/ 🤡
It comes with bing search pre configured for you so you don't have to look for the settings, we also hid them so you don't accidentally switch to duckduckgo because we believe Linux users shall experience the full potential of our services even out abroad on another OS
For all two people who genuinely use edge on Linux, it's still a more private experience than Windows. Regardless, more power to them
I'm reminded of Google's financial support for Firefox, so as to dissuade the idea that they are a monopoly
In exchange, FF uses Google search by default. So they're also getting direct value from the deal.
I love when people on the Internet say "X did Y quietly" to make it more suspenseful. This doesn't look quiet to me...
What does "quietly" even mean? Didn't take out ads in Times Square?
Why wouldn't they? Windows 10+ is a great development machine and Microsoft knows that a lot of developers develop with Linux. WSL is great for all parties - including Linux
I, too, have had the audacity to say WSL is useful on this community and it was also met with down votes. Purists hating and gate keeping, and then they wonder why Linux isn't more popular.
WSL may be fine for a Windows user to get some access to Linux, however for me it misses the vast majority of what I value in a desktop distribution -Better Window managers. This is subjective, but with Windows you are stuck with Microsoft implementation, and if you might like a tiling window manager, or Plasma workspaces better, well you need to run something other than Windows or OSX.
-Better networking. I can do all kinds of stuff with networking. Niche relative to most folks, but the Windows networking stack is awfully inflexible and frustrating after doing a lot of complex networking tasks in Linux
-More understanding and control over the "background" pieces. With Windows doing nothing a lot is happening and it's not really clear what is happening where. With Linux, it can be daunting like Windows, but the pieces can be inspected more easily and things are more obvious.
-Easier "repair". If Windows can't fix itself, then it's really hard to recover from a lot of scenarios. Generally speaking a Linux system has to be pretty far gone
-Easier license wrangling. Am I allowed to run another copy of Windows? Can I run a VM of it or does it have to be baremetal? Is it tied to the system I bought with it preloaded, or is it bound to my microsoft account? With most Linux distributions, this is a lot easier, the answer is "sure you can run it".
-Better package management. If I use flatpak, dnf, apt, zypper, or snap, I can pretty much find any software I want to run and by virtue of installing in that way, it also gets updated. Microsoft has added winget, which is a step in the right direction, but the default 'update' flow for a lazy user still ignores all winget content, and many applications ignore all that and push their own self-updater, which is maddening.
The biggest concern, like this thread has, is that WSL sets the tone for "ok, you have enough Linux to do what you need from the comfort of the 'obviously' better Microsoft ecosystem" and causes people to not consider actually trying it for real.