Pigs do fly: Microsoft unleashes 20,000 lines of Linux code

By | July 20, 2009, 8:58am PDT

Summary: Nope, that’s not a typo in the headline. Microsoft is releasing three Microsoft-developed Linux drivers to the Linux community for possible inclusion in the Linux source tree, the company announced on the opening day of the OSCON open-source conference.

Microsoft is releasing three Microsoft-developed Linux drivers to the Linux community for possible inclusion in the Linux source tree.

This is the first time Microsoft has made Microsoft-developed code available directly to the Linux community. The Redmondians have released various pieces of code under different open-source licenses over the past few years, but this is the first time Microsoft has released Linux code and the first time the company has used the GPL license to release code, I believe. (Anyone know otherwise?) My ZDNet blogging colleague Jason Perlow says Microsoft previously released part of the Linux Integration Components under the GPL, so this isn’t technically the first-ever GPL’d code from the Softies.

Microsoft made the Linux driver announcement on July 20, the opening day of the O’Reilly OSCON open-source conference.

(The driver news also comes a week after Microsoft Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner told Microsoft reseller partners that Microsoft has competed really well against “the fraudulent perception of free” that is at the core of many  Linux vendors’ sales pitches. Not all of Microsoft management is onboard with this newfangled licensing world….)

Microsoft is touting today’s release of 20,000 lines of code — which it is putting under the GNU General Public License v2 (not GPL v3) licensing agreement — as part of Redmond’s commitment to improving the integration of Windows and Linux.

With today’s announcement, Microsoft becomes one of many companies contributing code to the central Linux kernel committee. Back in 2008, the Linux Foundation said there were nearly 1,000 developers “representing well over 100 corporations” contributing pieces of code that were part of the kernel.”  Currently, the top five named contributors to the Linux core are Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM and Oracle.

Unlike the case with Windows, Linux drivers are considered part of the operating-system kernel. As the Linux Foundation explains on its Web site: “The Linux model is that IHVs (independent hardware vendors) get the source code for their driver accepted into the mainline kernel….Having hardware reliably supported by Linux” requires this. It’s unclear whether Microsoft’s drivers, though submitted by a software vendor, and not an IHV, will be subject to the same process for approval.

(An aside: The Linux Driver Project lead is Greg Kroah-Hartman a programmer with Novell. Remember, Microsoft has a three-year-old and rather controversial  patent/interoperability relationship with Novell.)

Microsoft’s Linux drivers were developed largely by members of Microsoft’s Open Source Technology Center (OSTC) team, which has developed expertise in Linux, Unix and open-source technologies.

Tom Hanrahan, the head of the OSTC, is quoted on Microsoft’s press site as explaining the purpose of the drivers this way:

“Our initial goal in developing the (Linux driver) code was to enable Linux to run as a virtual machine on top of Hyper-V, Microsoft’s hypervisor and implementation of virtualization.

“The Linux device drivers we are releasing are designed so Linux can run in enlightened mode, giving it the same optimized synthetic devices as a Windows virtual machine running on top of Hyper-V. Without this driver code, Linux can run on top of Windows, but without the same high performance levels. We worked very closely with the Hyper-V team at Microsoft to make that happen.”

(I’m not sure how much of the newly released Microsoft code is a repackaging and/or update of what it has been calling the Linux Integration Components for Hyper-V. I’ll ask and update this post accordingly.)

Hanrahan also played up the consolidation message in explaining Microsoft’s motivation for releasing the Linux driver code:

“Customers have told us that they would like to standardize on one virtualization platform, and the Linux device drivers will help customers who are running Linux to consolidate their Linux and Windows servers on a single virtualization platform, thereby reducing the complexity of their infrastructure.”

I have lots of questions about this announcement and will be updating this post once I have a chance to talk to Microsoft officials. If you have questions, chime in and I’ll try to get answers on those, too…

Meanwhile: What’s your take? Is today’s announcement more than just Microsoft dipping a toe in the GPL waters?

Update: Make sure not to miss Part 2 of this tale, where the pigs are flying low…. The plot thickens and Microsoft’s motives for GPL’ing the drivers are looking a little suspect.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
212
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Pigs do fly: Microsoft unleashes 20,000 lines of Linux code
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 11th Nov
mrroxx,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
WSFU GPL
larry@... 20th Jul 2009
Windows Services for UNIX has some GPL utilities in it: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321712
0 Votes
+ -
We Know EXACTLY 'Why This Largess?': MS Self Interest
Seamus O'Brog Updated - 21st Jul 2009
If you think MS is doing this because they are softening to OSS you're still a chump. Of course MS is doing this for their own benefit.

MS wants their OS to run as fast as possible under virtualization!!

That's it. No charity here.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course MS is doing it for MS benefit
rkegel@... 22nd Jul 2009
Anyone running a business would do the same thing and if you say you wouldn't your a liar.
0 Votes
+ -
Beware of Microsoft! They probably have something in the code that hurts!
No More Microsoft Software Ever! Updated - 21st Jul 2009
Microsoft WANTS to invalidate the GPL. Beware! Scan the code and ensure they didn't do something that will take over your rights!

DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING TO A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO TAKE EVERYTHING! I mean, come on. The WORLD has become their free beta testing site. I may be a cynic but I believe Microsoft is doing this for THEIR benefit. Not for the OPEN Source communities benefit (hey, I use Mac, not Linux). PUKE all things Microsoft! I implore you!

Microsoft! The danger is Real! The Danger is Microsoft!
0 Votes
+ -
MS self interest, absolutely
781lc 21st Jul 2009
You are so right about there self serving ... but , most for profit
corporations are. Yrh real point is just waht is being raised and that is
HOW and WHY?

I sort of suspect this is a further indication of their Apple offense ..
after all OS X is Linux based so the moe they can get those interested
in that approach to avoid the Mac and use a PC with Linux (and it is a
good alternate) the less the desire for a GOOD operating system, read
any thing but Visa or Windows.

I also switched to the Mac when I retired and now with two of them
am happier than I have ever been since my first IBM 286. What a
charge that was .. for a couple of months!

ed
0 Votes
+ -
Please repost after you have sobered up.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
Mac and Apple RULES!
0 Votes
+ -
XNU Not Linux?
Sephoroth 21st Jul 2009
Mac OS X isn't Linux based.... XNU is composed primarily of FreeBSD and Mach.
0 Votes
+ -
Based on FreeBSD, but not compatible
wjanoch 22nd Jul 2009
FYI, just because OS X is based on FreeBSD, that doesn't make it
compatible. Apple has changed several fundamental things.

That's why we don't say "runs on" we say "based on".

FreeBSD is a *nix OS, meaning it's like Unix, Linux, etc (there are many
more). Again, there are some pretty big fundamental differences.

Don't get me wrong, there are some some pretty big fundamental
similarities too, so a lot of software for one might work on the others,
but it's not guaranteed.

The big advantage is that it takes a lot less work to port from one *nix
to another than it does to/from Windows and Classic Mac OS (and there
are lots of other non *nix OSes too).
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft Is Gathering Ammo.
3JG Productions Network 21st Jul 2009
Don't forget Microsoft has an Anti-Trust hearing up & coming, after 5 year probation stint!
0 Votes
+ -
"DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING TO A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO TAKE EVERYTHING!"
You have just described Apple far more accurately than Microsoft. I guess you don't care about having to buy all of your hardware at the apple store.
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, no
914four 23rd Jul 2009
Apple's OSX works fine with UNIX LDAP and does not "work better" (for example faster file transfers) when attached to an Apple server, it works using open standards. Apple wants to compete in it's area of strength, but does not aspire to own the entire datacentre. Can you say the same about Microsoft?
0 Votes
+ -
If I read the article right....
maggietoo9 22nd Jul 2009
If I read the article right, Microsoft says users want ONE virtualization PLATFORM - and they want that platform to be Windows. If they don't fix it so Linux will run on it, they haven't a chance in h*ll of that happening. They want it to APPEAR they are saying "see how nice we are, we're fixing it so Linux will run on Windows" when what they are really saying is "we will let Linux run on Windows because we want to be THE OS platform and once we get Windows as the base on virtually every machine and have you hooked, THEN we can cripple the Linux implementation, when you are stuck with us."

Of course, all businesses want you to like and buy their products. It's just that SOME are honest and ethical and do it by building BETTER products, while SOME are dishonest and unethical and do it by trying to trick you and reduce your choices by killing competition from choices that make better products, rather than competing by making a better product themselves. They try to "frame" the discussion and "spin" the information, rather than just present you with a better product in an honest manner.


0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft is a company, they make money. They also happen to be the most popular operating system. Some may view this as a monopoly. Or even as, "Microsoft trying to take over the world!!!". This is a invalid view. Microsoft is not an evil company, doesnt matter how much you think it is.

Now, let me ask you something? If a company(i mean ANY company, (drink, food, movies, offices, etc) what are they ESSENTIALLY trying to do? Make money. How do they do this? Sell products/services. Now, Microsoft is particurly good at selling their products and services, mostly because from the start, and at the current moment, they allow any system to run Windows. Now, lets look at Apple, they only allow Apple Certified hardware..... Aka, only Apple made hardware. This hurts everyone..... So in this case, i would say "Apple" was more evil than "Microsoft".
But, would you have said that about Apple? No. Why? Because they are seen as the "little guy" in the OS game. If it was the other way around, you would be saying the same thing about Apple.

What Microsoft is doing with this isnt 100% open source freedom type of strategy. Its actually to increase sales (as it increases user base, if you have Linux clients they can still use Microsoft Servers), but also to make IT professionals have an easier time, because remember, the people that work their, are IT professionals to..... People make tools to make other peoples lives easier. Thats essentially computers....

So please, stop having such a strong POINTLESS negative view of despise. Its like racism, it sickens me.

PS: Also the fact that they released Windows 7 Beta and Windows 7 RC for free, is a pretty good sign of faith.

Mattisdada- Linux User, Windows User, Computer user.
0 Votes
+ -
Nobody's view is an "invalid" view
Ole Man 23rd Jul 2009
Luckily for you and many of your accomplices, even an idiot's view is valid, regardless of whether he loves Microsoft or hates Microsoft, or remains neutral on the subject.

Do not try to squelch freedom of speech.
0 Votes
+ -
M$ IS evil
robsku 22nd Aug 2009
In fact M$ can quite easily be defined evil. Sure, they are in it for money, that's not the crime.
The thing is that they have been using very shady, dirty and sometimes even illegal tactics to achieve and keep market domination. I think that even such common practices as using dominant position on market to create vendor lock-in is an evil business tactis - and nobody can claim that it has only negative effect on users. They have slowed down development when creating better software/functionality was not viewed as necessary by them to maintain market leadership (development of IE was very slow for many years even though technically the browser had been inferior to competing browsers for long time but they were not big enough threat for IE, they have propably the only modern OS today that by default has file system so prehistoric that it suffers from filesystem fragmentation, etc.) and they tend to get serious only when their market share is threatened (when vista failed miserably and linux came to netbooks M$ suddenly managed to work out Windows 7 so quickly to evolve in larger steps than Windows had managed in several past years alltogether).

Microsoft is not in fact interested at all in doing something because it will make end users life easier - by looking what they have done (and when/why) it was unavoidable coclusion that they are interested in developing their systems to be friendly enough for end users to keep using it and unless their market position is threatened by competing products on some area the development will turn very slow (view the history of development around Linux or OS X for example to see some difference, that is to see the speed that software made for end users *should* evolve).

And I have not much good to say about apple either, I'm not a huge fan of them and I don't like how they tie OS X with hardware, but at least they have good OS that seems to me to be honestly made to make end users life easyer, not just to make end users happy enough to move away (and to prevent such moving by creating vendor lock-in wherever possible).
0 Votes
+ -
Google Chrome OS uses a Unix base. By releasing their code they have just assured that their drivers will be available in Google Chrome. Now when they developm thigns for the Chrome OS they have a easier means to access it.
0 Votes
+ -
It's simply another Linux Distro, likely catered to work with google desktop, and maybe the google browser, and likely including google gadgets. I haven't seen a place to download it (pretty sure it hasn't been released yet). I'm sure it will likely even have desktop shortcuts to use their web apps as well...really I don't see it being all that different than GObuntu or whatever that was...

0 Votes
+ -
Chrome OS is Vaporware! (it WILL BE running *nix)
wjanoch Updated - 22nd Jul 2009
Linux Distro's are all *nix. Many folks don't understand that Unix is a
specific OS, so they use it as a general term for any "Unix like" OS.
Those who know, say *nix to make it clear that it's not the actual UNIX
OS.

Chrome OS is a secret. Nobody has access outside of Google.
Anything you've heard about it at this point is very vague (from
Google), or speculation (from tons of sources who don't have anything
better to talk about).

The one exciting point about Google's announcement is that it's not
going to use X11 for managing the windowing environment. That's the
same exciting point Apple made with the original OS X. The difference
here is that Google is stating that they will Open Source their new
Windowing code.

Linux may finally get a replacement for X11, assuming Google's
Windowing code is actually better.

Chrome OS may not have a start menu, or task bar, or any other
"familiar" interface. It could be as different as the iPhone OS (notice I
didn't say like it, just "as different as").
0 Votes
+ -
device drivers
tomofumi 21st Jul 2009
anyone can write drivers for their products and services, this has been done all over the world, so I think this is not so special for MS at all...even if they are not included in the main kernel distribution, they can host those files in their own MS website and let their customers install these files themselves...
(BTW, I don't know Baller can really fly?)
0 Votes
+ -
VMWARE Lower TCO, Higher Reliability
itguy08 20th Jul 2009
Smart shops will skip virtualization from MS - garbage
at its best. Resume generating event at its worst.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow.....
OhTheHumanity Updated - 20th Jul 2009
been using hyper-v for about 8 months now with not a single issue with it. Once again I guess I am just that good even with junk products. Very impressive I must say. And also is a heck of alot cheaper than vmware. But yeah its junk like you said and cost so much to manage. So much I never touch it which gives it such a large TCO and there was no cost outside the server OS purchase at $699. Honestly I would wipe the floor with your TCO numbers.
0 Votes
+ -
VMware Server 1 and 2
gschultz 20th Jul 2009
Why do people bring up VMware forget to mention the free VMware Server (and ESXi). Been using VMware Server 1 and 2 for about three years now with no problems. VMware Server 2 itself for about a year. Not one problem, performance is awesome, user interface is great. On a HP quad core server with 4 GB RAM we can restart VMware Server 2 virtual servers in a matter of seconds. I was blown away the first time I had to restart a server.

So sorry, Hyper V is not a heck of a lot cheaper than VMware. On the other hand, VMware can be a heck of a lot cheaper than Hyper V. You can run VMware Server 2 on many flavors of Linux, so no need for the $699 server OS purchase.
0 Votes
+ -
OK.....
OhTheHumanity 20th Jul 2009
Well we require more functionality than the basic flavors of VMware like vmotion and the like. Servers on Hyper-V are also rebooted in seconds as well. I have tested both and find no difference in performance. But it was gonna cost me around $10,000 for vmware and $699 for Hyper-V. I decided to go with the $699 OS. Plus we have all new 2008 server licenses and we can use one physical OS and one virtual OS with the same license key. So I actually gained a free license for my hyper-v system, so I am happy with that. You can limp along with the free versions, but hyper-v is pretty cheap to run and that was my point.
0 Votes
+ -
Limp along with VMware Server 2 ?
gschultz 20th Jul 2009
I cannot speak to HyperV as I have not used it. I'm guessing you have not used VMware Server 2 extensively. We use it in a production environment with no problems. Period. Performance is exceptional. Server 2 allows you to take advantage of AMD and Intel virutal enhancements in the processor. Through VMware Server command line tools we have a lot of control over the server and virtual machines.

Free VMware Server 2 is also cheap to run, and is by no means a toy that limps along. It has exceptional performance. I suggest you really give VMware Server 2 a try before commenting about it.
0 Votes
+ -
well point was......
OhTheHumanity 20th Jul 2009
not to say it doesn't work well, and I have used Vmware and it works fine just as Hyper-v does. We actually bought a vmware license but decided not to use it as it cost us more money than the single standard license to get the functionality we wanted.

I would use vmware, but Im not gonna spend $5,000 - $10,000 to do it when I can for much cheaper. There are drawbacks to the free version is what I meant, not that the product sucked.
0 Votes
+ -
You're missing the point...
gschultz 20th Jul 2009
Please name some of the draw backs to VMware Server 2? There may be drawbacks for you, but it would be nice to know what you consider draw backs.

Like I said, my employer runs VMware Server 2 in a production environment. Production web servers, Java application servers, file servers, even Active Directory domain controllers.

VMware's free offerings (which also includes ESXi) are production ready. For us there are no draw backs. There is no high TCO for VMware in our situation. No license to buy. If needed we can buy addons or support.
0 Votes
+ -
Sales pitch......
EarFix 21st Jul 2009
Hey, daMan, why don't you respond to what a $699 Hyper-V has that a $0 WM Ware Server doesn't?

Or does that make your sales pitch awkward?
0 Votes
+ -
VMware server 2.0 free?
jshifflet@... 21st Jul 2009
Quote directly from the VMware 2.0 EULA:
"VMware Server is intended for your personal non-commercial use only. If you are interested in distributing the Software for internal or external use, promotion, review or as part of a solution, please apply at www.vmware.com/go/distribution."

http://www.vmware.com/download/eula/server.html
0 Votes
+ -
Distributing the software
gschultz 22nd Jul 2009
The part of the EULA you quoted is from "Distributing the Software" not from use. Read the paragraph above the distributing section for use.
0 Votes
+ -
But what about
davidhite 21st Jul 2009
vmotion and the other stuff that one would like.
VMWare is not cheap when you need this
0 Votes
+ -
Question...
cashaww 21st Jul 2009
How much did you pay for the 2008 Server licenses, and why are they not
figured into the TCO?
0 Votes
+ -
Win2008 Server License. Free?
SupraGuy 21st Jul 2009
"Gaining a free license" only happens because you're using WIndows as your base "physical" OS. Linux is free already, so if that's your base physical OS, there's no cost.

I remember that there were things that the paid version ov VMware had that the free version did not, but it wasn't an issue to me when I implemented it.

I have VM ware configured with a virtual Windows Domain Controller, Exchange Server, a separate IIS server, as well as a Linux/Apache server, and a development Unix server in place. The Unix and Linux machines would be less convenient in MS' solution. Well, maybe it would be better NOW, but not when I set all this up.
0 Votes
+ -
Hyper-V is only cheap because it is subsidized with the Windows monopoly.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
Gee...it's so nice to own the computing ecosystem!

The danger is Real! The Danger is Microsoft!
0 Votes
+ -
Ever try Virtual Box ?
l.stevens1@... 21st Jul 2009
I have it and have not gone all the way thru as I have to get another Hard drive to Install Ubuntu on it FIRST
I did it on a tiny 10 gig drive and it was so simple compared to VMware
So Now I will do it on a bigger drive and put the 10 gig drive back in the older computer and format the drive and re install Ubuntu and give it to my dad for the internet . .
0 Votes
+ -
$699???
DemonX 20th Jul 2009
I've been running VmWare Server 2 on ubuntu 804 server for about the same amount of time. I've had no problems with it and it cost me zero dollars.
0 Votes
+ -
response to comments from "WoW"
wanderson 20th Jul 2009
You did not indicate how Hyper-V was used for 8 months, which could have been doing nothing more than playing 'Frozen-Bubble" in Linux VM - which would account for no problems.

The real point is that Microsoft Windows - in every creditable tests, from both independent market research firms and those by companies like Oracle, IBM Boeing, MIT, NASA and a few large financial institutions have all indicated that Linux is "significantly" more reliable, secure, scalable (think top 500 Super computer class) and flexible than Windows 2008 'Super Duper" server, not to mention "real" over any period of time, lower total costs of ownership, that it make no sense what-so-ever to make Windows the foundation for Linux.

In reality, common sense and technologically, Linux
should be the infrastructure for windows client VM, for those 'insisting' on running on top of Windows.

Marketing and 'proposed' collaboration of device drivers offer cannot change or improve the status of windows as a very weak infrastructure environment.

A perfect example:
After all the original hype of Microsoft ads stating that the London Stock Exchange (LSE) chose Windows over Linux for their transactions servers (t was learned shortly thereafter that Microsoft actually "paid" to host the exchange), the LSE have recently publicly admitted that Windows failed to deliver and they were moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux - like the NYSE and the Chicago Mercantile Stock Exchange and several others.

W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net
0 Votes
+ -
Please post a link proving your impressions. (NT)
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Can you please post a link for the LSE MS decision (and the hype).
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
I would love to use it in the future as proof that Microsoft is an advertising company and not a tech company.
0 Votes
+ -
"a heck of alot cheaper than vmware"
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
Yeah, I LOVE the fact that people who purchase Windows are ALSO paying for VMWare even if they don't need it. Makes it quite cheap to folks that DO need it. Subsidies are SOOOOO nice!
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
jshifflet@... 21st Jul 2009
You can get Windows Server 2008 any way you like it. Oh, and it's Hyper-V... Not VMWare!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/editions-overview.aspx

Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! LOL
0 Votes
+ -
No. It' VMWare with the Microsoft rebranded name of Hyper-V.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 21st Jul 2009
Microsoft always steals other company and developer ideas, changes 2 lines of code, and names it a Microsoft product.

Hyper-V: VMWare by another name!
0 Votes
+ -
Proof?
davidhite 21st Jul 2009
You are just spouting nonsense
0 Votes
+ -
Smoking Crack?
jshifflet@... 21st Jul 2009
From that response, it would seem you've never tried Hyper-V; same concept, different product. BTW - you can download a fully functional 60 day trial of Server 2008 Enterprise so that you may participate intelligently in this conversation.
why do microsoft employees insist on invading these forums?
0 Votes
+ -
Only a question! You can guess at the answer.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft has just made a deal with the devil. I really don't approve of this move by them but on the bright side its good to see Microsoft extending the olive branch to the linux users who hate them so much. It is a very nice gesture on Microsoft's part, now lets see if the linux users will be equally as courteous or if they will continue their hatred and snub their nose at Microsoft. I'm guessing it will be the latter.
0 Votes
+ -
We missed you on the linux eploit story.
Been_Done_Before 20th Jul 2009
it makes me want to cry.. they are just edging for a verbal fight.
0 Votes
+ -
Hurry...
Viva la crank dodo 20th Jul 2009
post something over at "Microsoft signs Linux compatibility deal" as it is boring so far.

I regret that MS does not even show you enough respect to even consult you prior to doing this. I have no doubt they consulted Mike Cox and he see's this as the final nail in the Linux coffin. (or was that your common phrase)
0 Votes
+ -
Extending the olive branch... p'shaw.
Metronome49 20th Jul 2009
This is self serving... the move is to get people to stop running Linux in their own machines and run it Virtual through a Windows machine... look at the ends not the means. So you can approve of the move now (I'm surprised they didn't seek your approval first Stevie B.) considering it's all part of their big business profit control scheme (clarification: I think that's just fine, just don't confuse what they're doing as generous to the open-source community).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Pigs do fly: Microsoft unleashes 20,000 lines of Linux code
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 11th Nov
mrroxx,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix