OSNews

Actually where have YOU been? MSFT has been making money off of Linux for a couple of years now, which is why Ballmer hasn't been saying much about it. they have been offering SUSE licenses with their WinServer and hyper-V products for awhile now. This is just an extension of what they've already been doing.

Forgot about the whole Novell agreement and SUSE controversy. That happened quite a while ago. Either way, I in no way claimed to write the whole god damn story down... I just gave a few examples that quickly came to mind.

You forgot (?) to mention vendors shipping Android. Supposedly Microsoft makes more money on Android per device sold (about 5 to 15 dollars a piece) than Windows Phone.

It's not a joke, it's for companies that are already buying Azure for Windows Server and are going to spend money on Linux web servers so they might as well write one check.

Maybe you don't agree or understand the basics of why companies exist, but making more money is pretty high on the list of things to do.

if you choose MS Azure, its really you that have chosen the VM. I don't think there will be many takers over Amazon Cloud, but that might be a good way to have a little better redundancy that what a single provider can give.

Maybe you don't agree or understand the basics of why companies exist, but making more money is pretty high on the list of things to do. "


Jump at conclusions enough? Know a thing about reading comprehension?

Nice job at taking the very first part of what I said, automatically assume I don't know what I'm talking about based on just that, and go on as if I don't know how companies operate and why they exist in the first place.

How about you read the rest of what I said, make an attempt to comprehend it without jumping to conclusions, and then respond?

In case you still can't figure it out, I am slamming Microsoft's monopolistic and abusive business tactics and their sleazy ways of making money for things that THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH, often under empty "patent" threats. Next thing you know, they're going to want you to pay them to buy something that doesn't even run Microsoft software. Oh, wait... [get the point?]

Edited 2012-06-07 03:46 UTC

Yes. That's how public clouds work.

You're free not to use it.
For Microsoft this is probably the smartest thing they could have done. Windows in the cloud is incredibly awkward and if they want people to use Azure they have to offer an alternative.

Yes, Windows in the "cloud" is incredibly awkward... which is why running Windows 8 with a Microsoft Passport instead of a traditional account feels so... wrong. Just as much as paying Microsoft to run Linux distributions in a VM on their "cloud" is.

Yes, fair enough, poor joke--but still, cloud ANYTHING sucks. Of course, that's just my opinion. And paying Microsoft to run a third-party OS that they slammed to hell and back with empty patent threats (and are now profiting off of these very threats) and called a "cancer" just seems like a joke.

Sure, it's their servers you're running it on, but everything else all added up just makes it seem... completely wrong. It's not that hard to download a virtual machine program and install the distro yourself... and you won't be restricted to the four that Microsoft has, for whatever reason after all their threats of Linux in general, decided to bless.

No, Microsoft want you to pay for renting there hardware and cloud infrastructure. You are free to use linux in a VM at home or in your private cloud.
Amazon is doing the same.

What is new is that MS allows you to use linux on there cloud.

If anything, this is MS way to say that Windows is not convincing enough for cloud computing.

Except that all they offer is the same as Amazon + the ability to use windows in the cloud.

I would still use Amazon because of interoperability with private clouds. I don't know any private cloud infrastructure that supports Azure API.

The company I work for, has a few customers doing Azure based projects.

Uh no the is a way for MS to make money from mixed shops.

If you think that Windows isn't "hardcore" enough or something for cloud computing then you should update your computer knowledge base from Slashdot 1999. Watch as both their Windows and Linux offerings have similar uptimes.

Edited 2012-06-08 00:33 UTC

How is that different than what Amazon does with AWS, and tons of other cloud providers as well?

You're paying for the infrastructure service they offer. They handle the hardware, power, storage, etc. parts. That cost them money. That's why they are asking to be paid for the service.

You would expect them to provide you with hardware for free?

How different is this from IBM and Oracle clouds for Linux?



Microsoft abuses a lot their position on the market, but if one sees it without taking sides, Microsoft is no different from any other driven by profit corporation.

I think the only difference is the inherent hate to Linux from Microsoft, and their historic effort to hinder any Linux advancement. But in this case they had to swallow their anger, since they are getting money in the end. While Oracle isn't a nice company either, they never considered Linux a primary enemy.

Edited 2012-06-07 16:18 UTC

Do you share the same opinion about Amazon Cloud instances?

You realize that this is the same thing Amazon's EC2 does. Its cloud computing my friend but because MSFT does it its the worst thing that could possibly happen.

This is what pisses me off about people like you.

Microsoft Offers a product ... they get feedback saying they want Linux support.

And you have a little raeg cry over it, after they offer it.

Oh well if one can't recognise the strengths of the competition you are always destined to fail.

Ah yes, surely it can't be that other people, companies were demanding from Microsoft to offer certain services, are willing to pay for them - so Microsoft obliges, listens to what their customers want.

That just wouldn't fir with your bubble of a world view...

Edited 2012-06-15 00:01 UTC