News Microsoft releases Linux kernel drivers

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/07/21/microsoft-releases-linux-kernel-drivers/1

Microsoft has surprised many in the industry by releasing kernel drivers which allow Linux to play nicely with its Hyper-V technology under the GPL open source licence.

 

I'm shocked I never thought someone would be able to use open source and microsoft in the same sentence. Oh well, at least you can (If I read this right) natively use Linux in Windows without the need for something like VMware

 

It seems to me like a classic MS move that doesn't seem 'selfish' at first - they are basically 'patching' linux so it will work with their backwards (presumably, its MS...) VM OS so they don't lose out on performance vs. VMware, cytrix etc who's OS is based on Linux and presumably isn't coded with MS DOS crap lingering...

 

My world.. It is crumbling.

 

... With the eventual aim of further embedding their virtualisation system into the corporate market by allowing a wide range of platforms to access the system, so that companies eventually become even more reliant on Microsoft software due to it fitting their corporate IT structure that little bit better (i.e. no need to overhaul existing architecture if you have a deployment of mixed Linux & Windows client machines). Thus, of course, gaining further market share in a burgeoning, and extremely lucrative, market

It's a canny move by MS, as they can paint it with all the good intentions in the world and it will actually be a big benefit. Fundamentally however, businesses do not run on "good intentions". Businesses - and I mean *any* businesses, no matter how benign they appear - are in business for one reason and one reason only: to make money.

 

YOUR DOING IT WRONG !!!!

 

*sigh* - so are you

microsoft could have chosen a better name though ... hyper-v sounds idiotic

 

I prefer VMware to Hyper V. VMware Server for workstations and ESXi for Servers. They are both free, work very well, and have a proven track record.

 

was almost reporting this post...

Anyway, this is just one of those boomerang moves, they do this and they get something superior in return in the future.

 

So remind me again why this isn't a good idea by Microsoft? Is it because it's a move by Microsoft?

 

I agree absolutely; they're doing it because they can't afford not to.

I don't think they've done anything wrong. They're doing this the right way, as the code can now be reviewed and improved (and probably will before it'll actually be merged into the kernel) instead of simply being 'pushed' upon others.

All this talk of interoperability is making me dream of a 'new' Microsoft. One that innovates to compete, but as above; I'd imagine they're only doing this because they'll never succeed with Hyper-V if they don't.

And anything that contravenes vendor lock-in is good in my books.

 

Who said it wasn't a good idea? Its a brilliant idea, MS knows where the money is and how to make it, even if they have to invest in their competitors they know they will get that money back.

 

Why do people find this amazing? If you look back to NT4 days they tried to embrace UNIX to steal away some market. Microsoft has released this so it works with their products so they can extend the number of systems that it works with. Microsoft thinks that in the virtualization market they need to acknowledge other operating systems. That makes perfect sense because virtualization is all about being able to run different os environments. Ignoring the place Linux has in virtualization would only hurt Microsoft.

 

For low power apps, I can see Windows Server software powering Linux VMs for thin clients, a smart move by Microsoft.