When Microsoft first embraced Docker and containers some years ago, no doubt people thought it was trying to nab some of that “virtualization-lite” action for its own Windows platform--at least I know I did. But with the release of WSL 2, which includes a full Linux kernel in Windows, it looks like this strategy has changed <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/18/the_future_of_docker_on_windows_is_linux_says_docker/>: The Docker news is of no interest to developers using Windows Containers, but there are not many of them. At Microsoft's Build conference last month, Gabe Monroy, lead program manager for the Azure Container Compute team, was asked whether Windows Containers are for legacy and Linux Containers for new projects. "I think that is a fair description," he said, demonstrating how the company's thinking on the subject has shifted. It seems Microsoft is now pushing the concept of develop on Windows, deploy on Linux. It is clearly hoping that those Linux deployments will happen on its Azure cloud, and so it still profits that way. Also, WSL 2 actually makes for worse Linux-Windows integration compared to WSL 1, which emulated the Linux APIs on top of Windows: Similarly, WSL 2 makes life better for developing Linux applications on Windows, but there are downsides. Running Linux in a VM as opposed to redirecting system calls is better for compatibility but inherently worse for integration. One aspect of this is that in WSL 2 I/O performance to files within the Linux VM is much faster, but I/O performance between Linux and the host is worse. Another is that WSL 2 has no access to serial or USB ports. Seems to me the obvious way to fix this, at least partially, is to flip things round, so instead of virtualizing Linux on top of Windows, you virtualize Windows on top of Linux. Then both your development and deployment platforms become fundamentally Linux-based. How long before that happens?
Seems to me that would be a stage in their classic Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy. They exploit Linux to deploy, but keep control of development and crucially of the store of applications. The public probably won't even notice that they have missed an opportumity to escape the expensiveMicrosoft system. Rod On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 11:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
When Microsoft first embraced Docker and containers some years ago, no doubt people thought it was trying to nab some of that “virtualization-lite” action for its own Windows platform--at least I know I did.
But with the release of WSL 2, which includes a full Linux kernel in Windows, it looks like this strategy has changed < https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/18/the_future_of_docker_on_windows_is_...
:
The Docker news is of no interest to developers using Windows Containers, but there are not many of them. At Microsoft's Build conference last month, Gabe Monroy, lead program manager for the Azure Container Compute team, was asked whether Windows Containers are for legacy and Linux Containers for new projects. "I think that is a fair description," he said, demonstrating how the company's thinking on the subject has shifted.
It seems Microsoft is now pushing the concept of develop on Windows, deploy on Linux. It is clearly hoping that those Linux deployments will happen on its Azure cloud, and so it still profits that way.
Also, WSL 2 actually makes for worse Linux-Windows integration compared to WSL 1, which emulated the Linux APIs on top of Windows:
Similarly, WSL 2 makes life better for developing Linux applications on Windows, but there are downsides. Running Linux in a VM as opposed to redirecting system calls is better for compatibility but inherently worse for integration. One aspect of this is that in WSL 2 I/O performance to files within the Linux VM is much faster, but I/O performance between Linux and the host is worse. Another is that WSL 2 has no access to serial or USB ports.
Seems to me the obvious way to fix this, at least partially, is to flip things round, so instead of virtualizing Linux on top of Windows, you virtualize Windows on top of Linux. Then both your development and deployment platforms become fundamentally Linux-based. How long before that happens? _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
True, but it keeps Linux concealed from MS's usesers and keeps profits away from Linux and in the hands of MS, ie it enriches th MS ecosystem at nthe expe4nse of the Open Source ecosystem. Rod On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 15:26, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:18:49 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
Seems to me that would be a stage in their classic Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy.
People talk about “Extinguish”. You can’t “extinguish” Open Source. It’s not like Microsoft hasn’t tried already. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:35:55 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
... it keeps Linux concealed from MS's usesers ...
I have a saying: “all the best technology is boring”. The most effective and useful technology essentially disappears into the woodwork, so nobody gives it a second thought. You flip the switch for your electric light, and you no longer even think of it as in any way miraculous or even worthy of comment. A lot of the uses of computers are going the same way.
Yes. I just hope that Open Source gets a fair share of the (financial) cake in the process. Rod On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 16:33, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:35:55 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
... it keeps Linux concealed from MS's usesers ...
I have a saying: “all the best technology is boring”. The most effective and useful technology essentially disappears into the woodwork, so nobody gives it a second thought. You flip the switch for your electric light, and you no longer even think of it as in any way miraculous or even worthy of comment.
A lot of the uses of computers are going the same way. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:25:49 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
Yes. I just hope that Open Source gets a fair share of the (financial) cake in the process.
That may or may not happen, and it may or may not matter. Open Source is already having a massively deflationary effect on the entire software industry. Instead of having to develop entire systems from scratch, being able to download a bunch of free toolkits to use as a starting point has I think made a big improvement to both productivity and costs, across a whole range of industries. Or, to put it another way, nobody in the Open Source world is going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates.
Yes. If anybody tries to charge monopoly rent as the economists call it they are likely to find somebody has found a way to do the same or better using Open Source. Rod On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 20:02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:25:49 +1200, Roderick Aldridge wrote:
Yes. I just hope that Open Source gets a fair share of the (financial) cake in the process.
That may or may not happen, and it may or may not matter. Open Source is already having a massively deflationary effect on the entire software industry. Instead of having to develop entire systems from scratch, being able to download a bunch of free toolkits to use as a starting point has I think made a big improvement to both productivity and costs, across a whole range of industries.
Or, to put it another way, nobody in the Open Source world is going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
participants (2)
-
Lawrence D'Oliveiro -
Roderick Aldridge