MS contributing to Linux

[Smoot Carl-Mitchell]

On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 17:00 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk>:
> > Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 22:25 +0800, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> தங்கமணி அருண் wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Read : http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/20/167
> >>>>
> >>> OOOooohh. Microsoft releasing a driver so that you can run Linux on top
> >>> of Windows. What a PR win.
> >>
> >> This is an MS move to compete with VMware. I am not sure why you want to
> >> run Linux under Windows, but there are a lot of Windows shops out there
> >> that may see some benefits.
> >>
> > Dude, where do you get the kool-aid?
> 
> He is exactly right. Of course it is. Hyper-V is *exactly* the same
> sort of move as Internet Explorer was.
> 
> Secondly, MS did not choose to give away the source, it had to,
> because it has been caught violating the GPL.

Folks, MS did not have to GPL the source.  They could have provided
proprietary drivers much as VMware does with its virtualization
software. I believe they chose to GPLv2 the drivers because the wanted
the code in the mainstream Linux release.  Adding proprietary modules to
Linux is a gray area from a licensing standpoint, but in general Linus
has permitted the practice.

I am not naive enough to think MS is doing this out of some sense of
community.  I along with Paula Jones of Groklaw see this as a move to
enhance the market position of Hyper-V.  It does however acknowledge the
fact that MS sees mixed server environments as the rule and not the
exception.  They had to do something to support Linux under Hyper-V.
Otherwise they would find themselves out of the server virtualization
market in short order.  As I said before, with MS's past behavior, this
move should be watched closely.  The OSS community has a lot of smart
people and smart lawyers, so I am sure they are watching to see how this
develops.

If I was doing a technical evaluation of virtualization products today,
I would probably choose VMware.  However, if I was in a predominantly
Windows shop with an enterprise MS license, it will probably be more
cost-effective to go with Hyper-V.  I like many Linux advocates would
like to see more Linux in the enterprise and I think Linux is a superior
choice from a technical standpoint.  The reality is there are a lot of
MS only shops which predominately buy MS products.  At least with these
drivers, they have the opportunity to dip their toes in the Linux waters
cheaply.
-- 
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
Computer Systems and
Network Consultant
smoot at tic.com
+1 480 922 7313
cell: +1 602 421 9005