Microsoft

Are any of you guys worried MS might have ulterior motives with their “love” for Linux? With .net core and sql server on Linux I wouldn’t be surprised if they released their own distro.

>embrace
>extend
>extinguish

Attached: 4L_eWKuChkZ.png (225x225, 426)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=x7ozaFbqg00
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Remind me again what the windows CoC is
>oh wait....

And you're afraid of what exactly? That Microsoft will come in and show all the shitty when-I-feel-like-it Linux developers what a real development team can do and then they'll co-opt it with all their corporate vested interest bullshit? Which would be different from the current situation how exactly?

Microsoft isn't interested in co-opting Linux, that offers no benefit to them. They just with killing Oracle once and for all.

>With .net core and sql server on Linux I wouldn’t be surprised if they released their own distro
Oh you mean like Azure Sphere.

t. Jobless
every company has a CoC. That's where the idea of including CoCs in open source projects came from.

Didn't they just announce a $10 distro?

I think they are interested in gaining a solid foothold into the community. Azure runs on Linux, and everything is moving to the cloud nowadays... but I see your point, this all may be a good thing in the end. We’ll finally have polished software written by competent devs, and the year of the Linux desktop will be brought to us courtesy of Microsoft.

Oh it’s already happening...

It's called an HR department. CoC is just further infecting open source with corporate culture and politics.

I'm not worried that they have ulterior motives at all. I know for a fucking fact they're trying to murder linux.

Linux is just a kernel and has been non—l-free since the 90s. The kernel developers have been accepting useless Microsoft software for years and the Linux Foundation is anti freedom as much as it gets. Microsoft can't make it any worse now.

Open source deserves it for splitting from free software.

They're interested in making money so they're embracing what's popular in servers. This shit is not rocket science.

They have their own distro. It's called WSL, and you can buy it from the Microsoft Store.

That's a compatibility layer.

Tin foil retards still believe that Ballmer still runs the company and also that Microsoft believes that they can still dominate the world with Windows.
It doesn't take a genius to see that they are practically shitting out money with Azure, and are going to do everything they can to entice developers and others into using that platform.

My bad, it's called WLinux, isn't by Microsoft. Microsoft's distro is called Miux.

I feel the open-source community has really been a huge let-down recently. I know OSS was a force to be reckoned with in the 2000s with the hey-day of the IBM open-source ad. Maybe it has to coincide with the normies flooding the internet in recent times.

youtube.com/watch?v=x7ozaFbqg00

Attached: 1533167065927.jpg (480x360, 7K)

Return to free software. Open source has always missed the point.
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

Who fucking cares, EEE is a dumb meme from you freetard faggots who want to simultaneously pwn le ebil corporations and make Linux a feasible desktop OS. News flash buds - it's not dumbass neckbeards and trannies screeching about autistic botnet shit that literally only you care about that are gonna do that, if anyone can do it it's gonna be companies with resources, brand recognition, and experienced employees. Besides, how the hell do you "extinguish" something that's out in the open fucking everywhere and GPL licensed. What, are you worried that an actual usable distro would become popular instead of your ultra-paranoid, needlessly complicated (note - complicated, not difficult. You're not smart for using them, you're just making it intentionally more difficult so you can pretend to be smart. It's like using an abacus instead of a calculator) autist distros? Or maybe you're a contributor that >does it for free and would get buttblasted that your work to take down le Microshaft actually helped them grab some more shekels. Either way, check my quads and neck yourself.

People need to be paid for the fruit of their labour. Make software free will effectively destroy any incentive to make sustainable and usable software for commercial and enterprise-grade purposes. Sure, you've got people who gladly volunteer, but e-celebs like Richard Stallman are one of a few who can manage to perform this stunt by selling over-priced GNU plushies.

My problem is Microsoft effectively has no competition. OSS was a genuine threat in the 2000s such that then Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer decried 'Linux is a cancer' and that it '...contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish.' These days, Microsoft is gladly embracing Linux while its share prices goes sky-high and it's now the world's most valuable company by market cap surpassing Apple. So something happened with Linux and OSS in general where it's no longer deemed a "threat" to Microsoft. I can tell that the OSS community is not as vibrant as it once was.

Lastly, it's not that people are forced to use Microsoft's products. I mean c'mon, Google's office products are all free, but how come people still insist on using Microsoft Office? It's also concerning that open-source cloud solutions like OpenStack has all but fizzled while AWS and Microsoft Azure are gaining ground, effectively creating an Internet that's owned by a corporation. Frightening.

Attached: 1533609406310.png (1000x1000, 182K)

Attached: 1525357756947.jpg (816x816, 206K)

Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.

And cows go mooo.
Obviously you don't know of micro$hit's history of how they operate.
Gawd no!

Based.

You can't make a sustainable model selling GPL software retard. "Free software" is inherently gratis since you can just compile that shit yourself without license checking

Holy shit user

>Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.
They're both one and the same. You can't have one without the other. If I make the source code and compiler available, nobody can be prevented from creating the product themselves and using it without giving the creator their due. Notch (the creator of Minecraft) spent more time creating the DRM for his product than Minecraft itself. That's how he's a billionaire. In fact, the source code of Minecraft was ripped off from a source code leak of another game.

Attached: 1523705339613.jpg (247x204, 6K)

> Hippie GPL rubbish
He was right about that, GPL is cancer.

Your problem. Just don't respect user freedom if you don't want to. Governments could make a lot more forcing you to work under their boot, but many don't. Decide which you prefer.

Yeah I'll prefer the one I can make money from. And so will most other devs. And so will most other people because software with no prospect of making money will be shit since they'd have to be a side project on top of an actual job

Ok, fine. Go do that. No one is forcing you to respect the freedom of others. Just don't get upset when your freedom is not respected in return.

Yeah I won't, the entire concept of software freedom is a shit meme so the prospect of being even remotely worried is a mystery to me

How is wanting to get paid to do work hurting anybody else’s freedom? What about my freedom to make money in a capitalistic society?

xD
Imagine you bought a house but only the original architect could make changes to the house and you were prohibited from doing so. Does that sound like a free model to you?

Minecraft had no DRM. You could just play it single player. The only thing that prevented you were default installs of servers, which check if your account had a registered license of the game, but he included an option to not check that.

>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.
>This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see DefectiveByDesign.org) and is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
>enemy
>malicious
I'm curious, do you also believe private businesses, patents, and rule of law to be malicious as well because "they restrict your freedom???" What about speeding limits, they restrict your freedom as well because I can't go as fast as I want with my own vehicle. What about property tax? Just because little Richie decides to write up a biased article saying something is bad and "malicious" doesn't make it so. How exactly is it malicious?

Yes, I agree there can be over-burdensome DRM, so we as consumers will use a different product. What if the DRM is near-universal? Simple, the government can trust-and-bust and create competition like they did with oil and railroad companies in the 1800s. What if the DRM spies on you or invades your privacy, well that's illegal and we can bring it up to the FBI. There are plenty of ways to address his concerns.

Imagine the police comes to your house and arrest you because you programmed in a way they decided was illegal. That is what "intellectual property" is, ownership of an idea, and it is a fundamentally harmful concept. Physical property makes some sense, because it cannot necessarily be shared, but intellectual property can by definition be copied effortlessly.

I'll take that house where the alternative is getting a bum off the street to chuck a wooden shack together for me

xD you are le epic

That's called a freemium model and has been in existence since the late 90s. The real Minecraft everybody wanted to play was survival mode with their friends and there was extensive DRM in place. I know because sometimes I couldn't play that stupid game since the DRM servers were down and the game couldn't authenticate me.

Attached: 1529836341342.png (523x472, 41K)

Attached: DN92g5VX0AESzqk.jpg (960x733, 48K)

>makes a stupid shitpost
>gets a stupid shitpost in return
>is shocked
You sure are a bright one.

But you could build your own house, really this is an argument about what is a "fundamental right" and if I wrote an extensive piece of software I should get to decide how it should be used and distributed.

Attached: 1526785064323.jpg (405x343, 39K)

>if I wrote an extensive piece of software I should get to decide how it should be used and distributed.
I already told you that is the case. You don't have to respect the freedom of others. You are free to oppress others with locked down, proprietary software.

Not even a shitpost literally just what FOSS is to good software

It was a dumb shitpost and I returned in kind. Now fuck off back to /b/.

/b/ is to FOSS what literally any other board is to proprietary software

What is that fat cat supposed to represent in this image? Just the wealthy/powerful? Corporations?

>FOSS
Stop using this obnoxious and misleading term, you open source cuck.

Like I said, multiplayer servers have a property in the settings to see if there's legitimate users connecting, you can disable that. You just played on shit servers then. I mostly hosted my own and made it possible to let friends who didn't buy the game join. The only freemium aspect I can see is that you could set a skin on your character.

Fuck are you on about faggot the F literally means free

And? That makes the O and the first S redundant. So just say free software.

That brings in confusion of which free you're talking about though, and is longer to type out

>That brings in confusion of which free you're talking about though
No it doesn't. Free software is free as in freedom. Freeware is free as in free beer. No confusion.

Not if you're talking to anyone that isn't a Jow Forums autist

Based and gnupilled FLOSS master race.

>linux
>oss
Being this bluepilled

> EE is a dumb meme from you freetard faggots who want to simultaneously pwn le ebil corporations and make Linux a feasible desktop OS.
That's where you're wrong. Freetards want to make GNU a feasible desktop OS.

Not with mentality they have.
Only some corporation can do that at this point of time.

Attached: notascuteasme.png (480x601, 452K)

based and redpilled

The only think I'm worried about is that they might fail.

Did it ever occur to you that they are investing in Linux Kernel development because the old Window's Kernel is slowly being dumped in favor of the Linux kernel?

They cannot do a forceful takeover or anything so I don't see why worry

Azure doesn't run on Linux, they offer Linux hosts to people who want them.
Why are people saying that?

Microsoft is worried about Linux because windows2020 will drop .exe support and only run UWP so using Wine in Linux will be just as good as windows at some point if you are a power user/pirate.