Microsoft doesn’t need to embrace Linux to do this. This is simply running Linux in a virtual machine. Microsoft’s embrace of Linux goes far beyond just being able to run Linux in Hyper-V. If Microsoft didn’t allow Linux servers to run in Hyper-V, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. But VM support doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg that is Microsoft’s embrace of Linux. It’s just a no-brainer.
You mean like Windows Server Core, to reduce OS footprint? Or bulk licensing agreements for your on-premises Windows boxen (servers, desktops, and CALs) for basically reselling Azure (this goes on top of Microsoft Gold Certified discounts)?
No, the server war is far from over. There are still far too many companies out their whose server product flat out will not run on Linux, because that would jeopardize their discounts for Microsoft software which they have to use at the very least because they have Windows desktops.
Did you notice how Microsoft people are become excited about Linux because they can run Ubuntu Bash in Windows 10? That’s an interesting piece of subversion right there. On the surface, oh Microsoft is making it easier for people to develop cross platform. On the back side, what they’re doing is no different than Wine in Linux. But Bash in Windows will work better (and frankly, it already does in spite of the fact that it’s an infant compared to Wine) because Microsoft can see both sides of the equation. The Wine developers can’t.
Personally, I don’t think the fact that Microsoft releasing Bash in Windows coincides with Linux’s (granted, slow) rising in the desktop market share. At this point, cross platform development from a Linux desktop cannot ever be as convenient as cross platform development on Windows, and it’s not for some failing in the FOSS community. It’s Microsoft exploiting an advantage in order to subvert Linux on the desktop.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, it’s an interesting debate. I just don’t see the malice, war or subversion that you clearly do. I can understand your perspective, when I worked as a consultant at an MS Gold partner ISV I often had the misfortune to work with some of the MS Licencing and software sales people - some of who would gladly sell their own grandmother to hit a target to achieve their bonus potential. I don’t see that side of MS in Satya or the top technical people they now have, there is some genuine passion there in building products their corporate clients really want - and that means Linux integration.
My reasons for thinking that the server war is over is that since 2013 I have worked/consulted for many companies in the EU and not a single one is planning to take workloads off of Linux and put them onto Windows Server. Whilst I personally think Server Core is great it scares the absolute crap out of kind of Windows Admins for who working in IT is just a job and don’t have much passion. Many companies I recommended Server Core to have never deployed it - and it has been the default way to install Windows Server since 2012.
Where we might see an uplift in Windows Server deployments may be in on-premises private clouds. This is predominately a fight between MS and VMWare, yes people will build a Windows Server/Hyper-V platform, but then run Linux/Docker/Kubernetes on top of it.
Even if people use the new Linux compatible .Net, SQL Server stack on top of Red Hat/Ubuntu/SuSe they will never move that back onto Windows Server, and anyone at MS who tried to make them would fail - what we are now seeing is that companies that like SQL Server and .Net (because Microsoft skilled DBA’s and developers are often cheaper than Java/Oracle equivalents and the licences are cheaper) are now seriously considering moving from Oracle/Java on Linux to SQL/.Net on Linux; I’ve had this conversation twice in the past week now.
Of course, you could still turn out to be right, people of Balmers ilk are still there at MS and one of them could one day take over the top spot again - especially if Satya does not deliver the goods. Your scepticism is healthy
