What happens to minecraft is absolutely normal as every game gets less popular over time... About github: It suffers from anti-microsoftism of the people who used it, not from MS themselfs. (It did not change at all till now, actually)
Well, Microsoft is an opportunist. But other major companies would be mortally wounded without Linux, e.g. Google would be out of business. And not just Google, router manufacturers and IoT manufacturers are dependent upon Linux.
You are right on that subject. But I do hope to see Microsoft making the next step and make DX more widely supported on various hardware platforms by providing the inner workings in any form of opensource. I think it would do the gaming industry and enthousiast a big service. Even as OpenGL ES is considered defacto standard these days. DX just does some stuff better and easier.
I think that Microsoft saw that they can't kill OpenSource and Linux and so now they're just rolling with it. Probably also has something to do with more than half of their cloud computing service being used with Linux instead of Windows. If they continue aggressing against the software the majority of their customers is using they'll make them angry and probably lose money to competition
Joe Johnson That was in... 1995. A lot of people and executives have changed since then. You should be more worried about Google, they have a pseudo-monopoly on the mobile market, search market, and constantly pushes standards that disadvantages competition and make Google services run like shit on other platforms.
What Microsoft saw was killing Linux was not going to gain them a thin dime. It would only cost them money to do. All Microsoft is interested in is making money. Right, wrong, or principals mean nothing to them. So what would killing Linux do as far as Microsoft's bottom line goes? It is a net loss endeavour. It has just taken people a while to come around to reality.
I've seen Microsoft go 180° on their policies several times over the past 20+ years (networking support, multiuser support, internet support, to mention a few.) Generally, the question wasn't "*why*", but rather "*why now*", and the answer usually boils down to "we will lose big money to our competitors if we don't". Let me try to elaborate on what I think are their "why now" reasons to stow away the still smoking guns and not only shake friendly hands with the open source community, but also share some of their toys with them: Microsoft are agressively working on re-creating their image in the consumer market, on pain of losing a good chunk of their market share before they can viably start to force-deploy and monetize Windows 10. The thing is though: people still hold on to Windows 7, with a market share of 40%. Windows 10 still lingers at about 30% (which are mostly upgraded systems). *) Why is that, you might wonder? One of the many answers is: people don't like being forced to upgrade from their "stable" (and already paid for) working environment into the next bug-infested reiteration of the Windows operating system. With a subscription based payment model looming on the horizon, and news of a recent (and by now withdrawn) patch even deleting your Documents folder when updating your system, you won't entice people to upgrade either. Now add to that the facts that hardware development slowed down over the past few years (having fancier LEDs becoming a selling point), that hardware _developers_ increasingly support open source development by cleaning up their interface mess or even open-sourcing some of their drivers, and GPUs and RAM still being at a crazy-high price level (thanks bitcoin, thanks smartphones). This leads to an environment allowing you to efficiently run your day-to-day work on years-old hardware of you so wished, powered by free open source software, freeing you of the shackles of hardware hungry Windows (unless you depend on some special niche applications only available on that platform). What definitely scared Microsoft aswell was Valve's announcement of their Proton engine for their Steam gaming platform, allowing you to run Windows games on Linux, playing games being one of the major reasons your average teen/twen opts for Windows over other operating systems on their computer. What they envision as their goal after acquiring GitHub, and several small-ish game developers aswell over the past few months, remains to be seen/speculated about. *tl,dr:* Microsoft need to work on it's image and get to terms with FOSS on the desktop segment if they want to keep their leading position in the market. Their self-inflicted and well-maintained "Micro$oft BugFest" stigma now faces viable free open source options for both professional work and high-end gaming, and that can and _will_ hurt MS sooner than later. That's your "*why now*" in a nutshell. *) there's a ton of statistics to be found, with some interesting deviations, so I chose to quote a post on a Microsoft forum which meets about the average of 5 other statistics I've looked up - link : goo.gl/nHvHHg .
Do you think they realized the collective work of people than group or they just want to become like other companies that put a little to source and hide applications level data like sues(opensues/any other diestro, BSD variants). I just wondered why they didn't moved to BSD. OR They will plague Linux like how systemd,pulseaudio got bricking systems . Only commimg future we come to know. But you can only fill a systemto a point cpu and io handles then it just thrown away for new and better optimization or re build from scratch or look for some alternatives(like Linux).
Hehe, their recent 1809 Update debacel definetly didn't help improving the Image of Win 10 xd You could say they fucked it up so hard, that they aswell could release Win 11 now. If they do, they need to give the Users more power, less ads, no (forced) spying etc. I really don't see any other way of them gaining back the users trust. Linux became so good already, (and I'm someone who always hated Linux for being overcomplicated) that I totally can imagine switching to Linux in a few months/years. I totally agree that Microsoft does this stuff because they HAVE to. Hell in a few years they could even Open Source Windows (Or parts of it like the Kernel) if the ship really starts to sink xd
As windows 10 mobile failed, they had to be alive on the market for consumers so they decided to pick sides between android and ios and they chose Android for that. Then they sold Samsung devices in their stores with built-in Microsoft apps. This move was their step fwd to expand itself and be more recognized, again. And now they have to support OSS to continue working with Android system.
Think of Richard on Steroids. It costs them nothing and they probably want to benefit from open source code while suing anyone who want to make money from the software itself - closed source option of the MIT license.
I'm not saying this is true, but one evil strategy might be if Microsoft allow Linux and its ecosystem to become dependent on their patents, then change their policy and sue everything in sight. Sure, the accusations of infringement would likely be invalid, but forcing people to legally defend themselves is an evil strategy for taking out enemies with a lot less money, and it would create widespread fear and abandonment.
@@JB52520 but they can't. If you publish something for example under the GPLv3 you can't reverse it. You're stuck with it, it's legally binding *for* *Microsoft*
Thank you Satya Nadella. I believe that they already embraced open source from several years back. Those whose are using microsoft R knows this. It’s a new era. For better or for worse, only time will tell.
Linux & the Open Source Community has grown too strong already. So the "Extuingish" part is definetly not true anymore. There's only so much an US based Company that even struggles with it's newest product compared to it's older ones (Win 10 vs Win 7) can do! I think it's more like Microsoft slowly but surely starting to see Linux as a Lifebelt. And Profit? Well their biggest profit comes from Cloud stuff, a place where Linux is dominant. So Microsoft is forced to start kissing Linux' feet xd
Trojan Horse comes to mind! Even if Nadellla really and truly embraces Linux, he wont be there long and someone else will replace him and start fighting against Linux, but covertly from the inside. And when the Linux community is using embedded Microsoft code..... BANG! Microsoft switches on us all and starts suing again!
@Ron Maimon I am aware of the big businesses/corporations are here to make money and therefore I don't believe in concept of brand loyalty and coming back to your point Microsoft is no different and I don't know what they are upto but if Microsoft tries to mess thing I don't think we people will let them get away so easily so chill
MS owned the patents for FAT and EX-Fat and 60,000 other patents so if they sued to be paid for the use of their IP and won their suits in court then why ought they return the royalties from their patents? It is not very rational to expect it.
There is no legal basis for Microsoft returning any of the money. But what has basically happened is that Microsoft has admitted it was wrong to pursue those claims in the court. If it was wrong then it should make reparations for its wrong doing.
Did MS say "we were wrong?" or did they say "we've changed. Our current position is not what it was before. Here are 60,000 patents, we gift them under GPL (or some similar licence) to the Open Source community for their use." and in saying that making no commitment to allow any other non-open-source use of MS IP.
Obviously it is positive. It is not reversible, insofar as the patents are open for open-source use from now on. So even if MS changes again what does it matter? Open source folk ought to be happy with 60,000 patents and if MS invents new things for which it keeps the IP so what? They've been generous and that is positive is it not?
Except, they never said they were wrong, and they didn't change their stance because of some ethical epiphany. They did it because the change will, in the long term, make them even more money. So, expecting them to give up money would be entirely counter to their entire reasoning behind the change.
Gary, You forgot that bit in the beginning which goes, "Ok, are you sitting down for this?" "I have a bad feeling about this"-- Han Solo "I trust Microsoft the exact distance I can throw a Pyramid." --Anonymous.
While Microsoft embrace Linux on Windows 10, they want you to use linux their way: installing Linux within Windows with app store. If you use to dual boot windows and linux using a linux boot manager like GRUB like I did since more than ten years, it now fails on semestrial update with an error code meaning "unrecognized device". Thanks Microsoft.
I don't dualboot (on the same harddrive) but seems that thierry bo is saying that windows 10 overwrites the bootloader each 6 months so I'm going to base my comment on that interpretation. Danilo Margarido, not everyone has UEFI, most computers still use BIOS (which is better anyway for most applications, there's no need to fix what isn't broken) so you're assuming thierry bo has a UEFI capable computer, you're also assuming his computer's UEFI implementation isn't broken and preventing him from using 2 entries (because seems that most UEFI implementations are buggy and broken). Also, windows 10 breaks itself each 6 months anyway, something always breaks each semestrial update, last time was a bug that erased user's files, so stay away from windows unless you absolutely require it, if you do, stick with windows 7.
@@God-yb2cg every fucking x86-64 computer built after 2011 supports UEFI out-of-the-box, even if the firmware looks like a BIOS to you. The vast majority, if not all, of laptops comes from factory with GPT-formatted disks, with UEFI enabled by default and used for boot. Whether said implementation is stubborn to accept more than 2 boot entries, that is at the user's discretion. Lest we forget that updating said firmware is of the utmost importance, should the user desire a bug-free experience. So, be smart, always use UEFI + GPT, never MBR; if it's somehow "broken", disable _fast boot_ and _secure boot_ before proceeding forward; remember to check the OEM for firmware (BIOS) updates. PS: Disks over 2 TB cannot be used with MBR, so you cannot get away with that.
Yes, computers built after 2011 supports UEFI, many computers were built before that, only one of my computers support UEFI and that's ironically my slowest (non-server) computer. And you're assuming manufacturer provides firmware updates, many manufacturers don't provide updates or fixes, also it's actually easy to hardbrick a motherboard now thanks to UEFI and it's broken implementations. Yeah 2TB disks cannot, in that case they should have just expanded the existing BIOS limitations or written some new BIOS alternative but never the messy fuckup UEFI seems to have become .
Of course they're up to something: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Their statement about Linux/Open Source used to be that its a cancer. But they were never going to destroy superior open source software that runs with fewer resources and has legendary reliability. Their behaviour now is very characteristic of the "embrace" and "extend" phases of their documented strategy with opposition that proves immune to being bought out or swamped with free crapware like IE/Edge. The joke will be on them though. You can't extinguish Open Source. Someone will just fork it.
I understand why some people still shit on "M$" but tbf their new CEO has made significant efforts to reverse the extreme stigma by tech enthusiasts and developers (just check the comments lol) of Microsoft/Windows = enemy of opensource/Linux that their previous CEOs have created decades ago, and that's something to commend. I mean, since Nadella was CEO, they've open-sourced a lot of their products, made their services cross-platform, 'de-prioritized' Windows in the company, and even killed their own mobile platform in the past few years.
I still get this image in my head of a fox with his arms around a bunch of chickens saying "I'll protect these chickens!" or "I *love* these hens!" lol
I don't care what their motives are, but ever since ms opened .net they've been very nice to the opensource community and other platforms including mac, they bought Xamarin and made it open source, and took great measures to make their tools multi platform even though they didn't really have to. Things couldn't be any better for a C# developer, their Roslyn tools were god sent to me, because I used it to build a very robust code generator that almost writes the code for me on its own cutting development time up to 90%, I couldn't be any happier!
They pledged all existing patents, which aren't doing as well today in the consumer market as they used to back in the day. What about future patents? Everyone loved their tagline of "Embrace and Enhance" until they took things too far and folks added "Extinguish" to the tagline. Either which ways, hope things turn out for the better. ✌️
Great video! Just one, small thing. On the top of the visor of the cap are some weird, white pixels when the visor is higher than rest of the cap. Probably it is caused due to green-screen. Just wanna mention that. Beside that - great!!
What happens when there is a change in leadership and the new boss decides he doesn't want to play nice and start suing every project that as their patented code?
MS operation "open windows". Step 1: protect Linux Step 2: slap Linux with billions of dollars Step 3: take over Linux just like Google took over Android. Torvalds: I am king on Mobile flatform, now I will be king on desktop. Me: hey everyone! Let's go switch to freeBSD.
Microsoft has advantages gained by being established, having a huge reputation after building a generation of users of their software, and having a huge platform etc. etc. I think it's really about the fact that patents don't matter much in a fast-moving world. Having a lot of resources and a solid reputation, that however, matters. The reputation lets the company continue to stay on top, and their resources make them strong enough to win against any too weak competitor, or to buy out a strong competitor if they can.
I agree, the cash cow of Microsoft in the early years was the desktop. Most of us and Microsoft can clearly see that they no longer dominate that space and squeezing the lowly individual user for a few bucks is not where the money is. Meanwhile they have enterprise offerings that bring huge revenues that are not tied to the operating system. Exchange, SQL server, Sharepoint, etc... Embracing an open source OS makes huge sense and now that the die hard anti OSS dinosaurs have left, let the winning begin!
What a time to be alive :O With that said, .NET technologies are already present on the Linux, not in full but it is advancing. .NET is huge for Microsoft and having it everywhere will boost their business. Ironically, they have invented it as a response to Java as they didn't liked the idea of having universal platform which could be executed on every OS.
What is their new revenue model is the only question that matters. I guess they understood that the new model is renting the application based on actual usage rather than selling it.
At the moment you get the impression, that Microsoft is putting its arms around the open source world out of pure, great love. But you should never forget that Microsoft will concentrate the pressure on the neck!
@William Burton Well said. Even change of guard hasn't changed anything at MS. They're blood thirsty but now vie for it with new strategy. Embrace & stab in back.
At about 10:00, that's the logic. It will create an even bigger revenue stream for MS. Maybe MS Linux is on the way now?!? I hope it turns out the way you've explained it, Gary. I hope it is not extend-embrace-extinguish as many people are fearing. And thanks for bringing up the topic!
You know they're up to something. Could simply be ... the next version of Windows "Windows Core" will run on Linux also. So, their desktop "non-opensource" app will run on Linux. So, you'll have the Linux stuff. But, also "hey, you know ... Windows store apps run on your Linux box now.". Maybe, you like something on there & you buy it. Office 365 runs on Linux ... Maybe you buy it? Linux isn't a threat to them. They've gotten from it. Now maybe they can get a little more. Big smiles walking past Linux machines with their desktop on it.
As linux user I really hope to see a good RISC pc processor so we can pioneer it(as it is easy to migrate over all the software) and windows can follow suit when they see the progress the Linux community makes.
From Windows 2003 Server lot of the lines from UNIX were included. GNU/LINUX is free in basic and even Microsoft can use it. Now, Microsoft included Shell on last update.
Interesting discussion. You forgot to mention Microsoft's recent acquisition of GitHub. That happened, and now they announce the opening up of patents; seems like 2 pieces in a larger, deliberate strategy for the future.
does that mean that any Microsoft technology that Apple wants to use or is currently using would mean that Apple would still have to pay royalties, or are they exempt to now since most of the stuff they use is closed source?
A bold statement is one thing - they need to back that up with action that bolsters that statement. Like you said, perhaps making up for some of that cash they took years ago or something.
I always hope for the best, but as you said, a company's leadership and policies can change over time, and it's important to remember that whether the current leadership plans to wield patent as a cudgel or not, legally, they still could if they wanted to. I think it's wise to be wary of Microsoft-controlled patents for the time being, to avoid a potential "psyche!" move. However, patents expire eventually, so it could be that Microsoft just wants their technologies to continue being relevant after they lose monopoly power over them. Only time will tell.
After being defeated by open source solutions like android and chrome, they can no longer ignore the profitability of being partially open source. They also will gain greater control over platforms, just like Google.
The only way this makes sense to me is if Microsoft is planning to base their future operating system(s) on Linux. If you ask me, this makes perfect sense when you consider that they added a Linux sub-system to Windows, and then later made the Batch shell (or whatever it's called) work on Linux.
I've used Linux since about 1997 but it has always been just occasional use. In 2018 Linux became good enough, stable enough and offered more features than Windows. At the same time Windows got bad enough and offered fewer features that I do ally moved to Linux full time apart from gaming. Then Valve released Proton and even that is eroding now. Desktop Linux is still small but now growing firmly and server side Linux is beating Windows. Microsoft can see the likely outcome and want to get developer mindshare by becoming friendly with open source. I do think it is a genuine move and I welcome it. But I am unlikely to go back to Windows.
Well Microsoft is still the king for stuff like ms office, active directory and their exchange server. Find a good replacement for Office on Linux that would support all the crap that people have done on those system and windows is dead.
@@tnetroP I would not recommend something like this in production unless that you have a very particular scenario where it's required for some obscure reason. You're better knowing exactly what you do and why you do it otherwise it can be a nightmare. if I speak for my environment we have a lot thing that are build around the Microsoft ecosystem. Moving away from Microsoft could potentially mean rethink or rebuild a lot of stuff.
After graduating from college I don't need any of Microsoft's software offerings anymore on my home PC. I just wish I could game on Linux Its the only thing that stops me from switching. I am a huge fan of Mint Linux.
Three Years later GitHub is renamed to Microsoft Store. Five years later. Oops you put all these technologies into the Linux Kernel. Guess we'll be in court and if you don't want that X Billion Dollar fine, we can have a settlement that states Microsoft will obtain ownership of the kernel. All joking aside that is interesting news. Maybe Wine + DXVK can really gain from this too, Heck maybe even ReactOS can leave Alpha status faster.
Good video thanks Gazza , perhaps old age has made me skeptical of human nature , sort of reminds me of that little star trek skit ............ " We come in peace .... shoot to kill , shoot to kill " :) . Or the old saying about the smiling crocodile .
Pretty interesting. I wonder what happens if Microsoft later decides to leave the OIN after other members start using some of their patents? Do they immediately have to stop? Can they continue? .. for how long? Seems like it could get pretty messy.
Something tells OIN wouldn't be dumb enough to let that happen considering all of the expensive lawyers involved in it. My bets on a grandfather clause protecting access to stuff Microsoft put up to be shared when they join OIN.
The OS wars are over. Microsoft was fighting Linux for OS dominance on three types of platforms: desktop, server, and (against Linux-based Android) mobile. They won OS dominance on the desktop, and lost it on the server and mobile. More importantly, there is a shift from data being stored on the local device to it being stored "in the cloud", and this is where the new war is. Microsoft is now fighting Google for dominance over "the cloud", and they depend on Linux as much as Google does.
The new CEO, Satya Nadella, has committed to a new strategy for profit at Microsoft using cloud services rather than local system software. This is more of a move toward that end. If Linux is capable of interacting with Microsoft more easily, then they can sell more cloud based services on Azure. In the end, Microsoft will be able to sell their services on the basis of having finished and refined software, which the Linux community is seriously lacking.
You say that as though Microsoft is something that is possible to trust. They're a company, not a community of people making software for themselves and each other that they want to use.
Microsoft embracing open source is kinda what AMD has been doing for the long time now. They're extending their support to Linux developers to gain PR and stay relevant before bigger players extinguish them (Intel, Google, Apple). It's not a surprise MS has published source code for their products and now are giving patents rights left right and center. Their internal policies for how software development is done have caused disastrous damage to the point majority of their job applications are rejects from Google, and fired a huge amount of experienced testers only to announce the beta program where users are the testers - they're seeking volunteer labor. AMD had been doing similar things, but now that they've got very competitive product they're more secretive how it works. Microsoft is scared.
So if you don't understand why Microsoft will be defending Linux, the new business model will be like the Google Play store. Open source in the way that it operates, but legally defending its product line as a proprietary entity. This way, both the developers in the open source community AND Microsoft get money out of it. This just means you'll be paying for anything you want to download. Some stuff I imagine will still be free, but the majority of it will have to be paid-for software and services, so both open-source developers and companies like Microsoft can make a profit. I actually like the idea. There are some very dark "what if" scenarios that come with this idea, but I think more good would come of this than bad.
Just as they replaced the heart of Edge from Trident/EdgeHTML to Chromium/Blink. Hopefully they will make Windows another Linux distro. So a real Lindows expected to land. ☺️
What i got, they tries to exploit open source licenses as their source for further development. So no more painfully to get close linux as long as they can catch linux new features. Just like google with android...
This is simply a case of "If you can't beat them, join them". Historically, MS never managed to run their own large server farms on Windows (I guess they finally did make some inroads making Azure possible, but I still wonder about the substrate...). As they said at 1:50. That ship has sailed - only small, workgroup servers _perhaps_ run Windows today. Remember then they promoted NT for supercomputers? Hillarious! Microsoft still owns desktop and so-called "productivity app" space, and just decided to pick their battles wisely. Interoperability is now an asset, not a threat. But this "battle" with OSS has benefited Windows users, too. Win 10 resembles an actual operating system, rather than a toy pretending to be one, much more closely than eny previous version. It is almost usable! With new versions of WSL I might not even need CygWin any more!
The tech industry seems to be going in a good direction these days. I remember Intel and AMD worked together to get better integrated graphics in CPUs, and now this.
