8 comments

  • codycharris 1 hour ago
    No it's not. It's for tuned for Azure. Nobody is running this outside of their compute environment.
    • osigurdson 26 minutes ago
      You may be right, its possible however that people running on Azure may use it locally for testing.
    • VincePlatt 44 minutes ago
      I was curious to see what it would be like to run this under WLS. I'm guessing we'll get our chance at some point.
      • haydenbarnes 34 minutes ago
        You get a sense of it now. Azure Linux 3.0 is the base for the WSL system distro, there all the WSLg (GUI) and now the wslc plumbing happens. It's ephemeral, but you can drop in and look around with wsl --system --user root. An official WSL image of Azure Linux 4.0 is coming in a few weeks that you'll be able to install with wsl.exe --install Azure...(I'm not sure the exact name).
  • froh 1 hour ago
    call me old fashioned isn't a general purpose OS one that runs on any hardware and set up? and is certified with hardware vendors for full backing and support?

    all this says is: "MS now provides a unified Linux from WSL to the MS cloud. just like what you got w/ SUSE RH canonical up to now. but without any support outside the MS stack.", right?

    or am I missing something?

    • steve1977 0 minutes ago
      I'd say old fashioned Linux would come without any certification or support.
    • PacificSpecific 59 minutes ago
      Don't worry you aren't. Luckily no one will use this distro day to day
    • haydenbarnes 59 minutes ago
      ISV certification is coming.

      On-prem hardware support would be interesting, wouldn't it?

  • gnabgib 51 minutes ago
    Previously (61 points, 17 days ago, 49 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48187736

    Microsoft's Azure Linux (66 points, 4 months ago, 109 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805841

  • drnick1 1 hour ago
    This is a nonevent, unless perhaps some genuine "general purpose" tools come out of this. MS will never contribute to things such as Wine and Proton and kill its golden goose.
    • Krutonium 1 hour ago
      You say that, but Microsoft has contributed to Wine!

      Both in terms of code and help, on occasion. Microsoft gave Mono to Wine, and while Wine has a ban on accepting code from people who have seen the source of Microsoft Windows, they have, if I recall correctly, accepted documentation on Windows Internals from Microsoft themselves.

      • 999900000999 48 minutes ago
        Which is rather kind.

        They could of also pulled an Oracle , claimed the APIs are copyrighted and sued.

        WINE, even if right couldn't afford to fight.

        I can even imagine official Linux support for the Surface tablets.

        Infact, Microsoft makes very little off its consumer OS. They could even give up the market entirely and bless a distro with solid WINE support for legacy applications.

    • Topgamer7 1 hour ago
      Technically they gave mono to the wine project
    • makeitdouble 25 minutes ago
      DeathArrow also touches on this, but to complete:

      Windows stopped being the Golden Goose a long time ago, probably from the point Sundar Pichai became CEO.

      A visual aid from a quick search: https://visuwire.com/microsoft/

      For instance Bing and LinkedIn combined bring in more than Windows at this point. And XBox is basically on par.

      Their money makers don't rely on Windows either, so the OS isn't even a useable moat, which is why they can afford to enshittify the consumer version to death.

    • DeathArrow 54 minutes ago
      >MS will never contribute to things such as Wine and Proton and kill its golden goose.

      I think Microsoft is contributing to Linux kernel. Their golden gooses are Azure and Office which have nothing to do with Wine and Proton.

      It wouldn't be too weird if they will release a win32 compatibility layer for Linux in the future as they might not want to maintain a full operating system.

    • santoshalper 1 hour ago
      I don't think Microsoft would intentionally compete with Windows, but it does seem as though they are preparing for a world where Windows is no longer their golden goose, or at least hedging their bets. Given that Windows has already decisively lost the battle for servers, this seems prudent.
      • kenjackson 34 minutes ago
        It’s already no longer their golden goose. It’s about 6% of total revenue (see http://bullfincher.io/companies/microsoft-corporation/revenu...).

        Microsoft could give Windows away for free and be fine. Of course it’s still a lot of money, so they’re not going to leave a multibillion dollar business on the table. But strategically, preserving its revenue is not their priority.

        • warumdarum 17 minutes ago
          How many percent of their revenue funel are dependent directly or indirectly on windows beeing the peoples workstation funneling them towards their subpar ptoducts?
  • mattoxic 53 minutes ago
    "Microsoft’s in-house Linux, the distribution that grew out of CBL-Mariner, just hit public preview as a general-purpose cloud OS you can run on any Azure VM. Here is why that is a real step in Microsoft’s Linux journey, not just a version bump."

    Christ, they even lead with AI slop.

    • WD-42 49 minutes ago
      Do people not realize that this just instantly torpedoes credibility and respect? I'm dumbfounded.
  • smitty1e 1 hour ago
    [laughs in Torvalds.]
  • unethical_ban 1 hour ago
    Tldr a MSFT maintained fedora fork tuned for Azure hardware.
  • nullpoint420 1 hour ago
    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish anyone? Although, as a Fedora user I'm happy it's RPM based.
    • giancarlostoro 1 hour ago
      Little harder to pull that off when the key components are all GPL licensed, but also all of Microsoft's bits and pieces for their distro seem to be MIT Licensed. Honestly, it certainly feels more like Google lives by Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (email, browsers, video streaming, etc).
      • saghm 1 hour ago
        You cited three of the most prominent counterexamples to the common meme about Google killing their products as evidence of them extinguishing things. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I don't think you've demonstrated what you think you have.
        • brokencode 33 minutes ago
          The “extinguish” part refers to your competition, not to your own product.

          You embrace a popular open standard, add new features to your software that build upon the standard (but are proprietary), then watch as your competitors die off because customers become locked into your proprietary features.

          Similar to how Apple hijacked SMS to add iMessage and introduced all kinds of features and the blue/green bubble styling.

          For the longest time, they refused to support RCS, trying to keep people on iPhone by making texting between iOS and Android suck.

          Of course, a lot of people switched to third party messaging apps because of how much Apple was intentionally ruining texting, so now Apple has had to adopt RCS.

          So the “extinguish” part can be hard to pull off given sufficiently strong competition.

      • nullpoint420 1 hour ago
        Agreed on the Google front here.
      • greenavocado 1 hour ago
        That's why they're pushing hardware attestation so aggressively
    • tossit444 1 hour ago
      Not really. They've always advertised it for, well, Azure, and the actual announcement[0] makes it clear that it's simply a distro for Azure workloads. Considering they state it's "built exclusively for cloud and server workloads, it is not intended to support desktop usage or GUI applications," Microsoft isn't playing that game here.

      [0] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/linuxandopensourceb...

    • yjftsjthsd-h 1 hour ago
      As a Fedora hater, I'm also happy it's RPM based; IMO, .debs are just flat out worse than .rpm as a format and the tooling on top matches that. I do wonder, though:

      > Azure Linux 4.0 is derived from Fedora, right now a Fedora 43 snapshot, rather than assembled package by package the way 1.0 through 3.0 were.

      Then what's the point? They could just ship Fedora. There are minor differences, but all things that sound easy to get upstreamed with minimal effort.

      • mhitza 1 hour ago
        Same as with any distribution it gives you flexibility over update cadence, validate your software doesn't break with updates, and push out your own hotfixes without being tied to the release process upstream.

        Default configurations as well, since it states FIPS compliance it has to change defaults <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveFipsModeSetup#W...>

      • fragmede 1 hour ago
        Time difference. A VP at Microsoft has someone they can yell at to make an ship a change. Having to ask upstream politely and then wait for their release schedule was proving to be an issue.
    • tigerlily 1 hour ago
      Extinguish Windows morelike...