|
|
Microsoft releases Linux kernel drivers
Author: Gareth HalfacreePublished: 21st July 2009
The release of the LinuxIC kernel drivers under the GPL surprised many in the industry, but makes sound sense for Microsoft's Hyper-V business unit.
As reported over on CNet, the company – long a harsh critic of the efforts of open source in general and Linux as a possible competitor to Windows – is releasing its Hyper-V Linux Integration Components under the GPL open-source licence, freeing them for further community development and possible inclusion in future versions of the Linux kernel.
The LinuxIC package is a series of drivers which allow a Linux system to co-operate with the company's Hyper-V virtualisation system – vastly improving performance when compared to an un-modified system. This finally makes Linux guests a possibility on Windows-based virtual machine servers running Hyper-V – and should go some way to answering critics' complaints about Windows bias.
The move isn't all about altruism on Microsoft's part, however: while the release of the LinuxIC code will make Linux a choice for Hyper-V users looking to performance specific tasks with a virtual server, the system still requires a Windows server as a host – tying people in to Windows even as they move towards Linux.
A statement on the company's press site claims that the release represents the open sourcing of a not-unimpressive 20,000 lines of code. The company has also stated that the release is specifically for inclusion into the “Linux tree” - heading off any possibility of a TomTom-style lawsuit in the future.
While the move represents baby steps for the company which many still see as an opaque monopoly, it's certainly refreshing – and arguably had to happen sooner or later so long as Microsoft wanted its virtualisation technologies to be taken seriously.
Do you support Microsoft's move to a more enlightened approach to open source, or will it take a fully open-source release of Windows before you'll cut it some slack? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Related
Comments (13)- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2010
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
... With the eventual aim of further embedding their virtualisation system into the corporate market by allowing a wide range of platforms to access the system, so that companies eventually become even more reliant on Microsoft software due to it fitting their corporate IT structure that little bit better (i.e. no need to overhaul existing architecture if you have a deployment of mixed Linux & Windows client machines). Thus, of course, gaining further market share in a burgeoning, and extremely lucrative, market
It's a canny move by MS, as they can paint it with all the good intentions in the world and it will actually be a big benefit. Fundamentally however, businesses do not run on "good intentions". Businesses - and I mean *any* businesses, no matter how benign they appear - are in business for one reason and one reason only: to make money.
*sigh* - so are you
microsoft could have chosen a better name though ... hyper-v sounds idiotic
was almost reporting this post...
Anyway, this is just one of those boomerang moves, they do this and they get something superior in return in the future.
I don't think they've done anything wrong. They're doing this the right way, as the code can now be reviewed and improved (and probably will before it'll actually be merged into the kernel) instead of simply being 'pushed' upon others.
All this talk of interoperability is making me dream of a 'new' Microsoft. One that innovates to compete, but as above; I'd imagine they're only doing this because they'll never succeed with Hyper-V if they don't.
And anything that contravenes vendor lock-in is good in my books. :)
Who said it wasn't a good idea? Its a brilliant idea, MS knows where the money is and how to make it, even if they have to invest in their competitors they know they will get that money back.