Microsoft president admits they were wrong on open source

TL;DR They only love open-source and Linux because they have to.

I have had a chance to work with Microsofts open-source technologies. And to be fair, some of it is quite nice.

.NET Core is a pretty nice programming platform, like a more lightweight Java. BUT it's only partially compatible with .NET Framework.

PowerShell Core can allow easier interaction with Windows systems. BUT it's only partially compatible with PowerShell which is actually shipped with Windows, and can do only a fraction of what PowerShell on Windows can. It is also really slow. Like bash through a laggy SSH connection slow, but locally.

Microsoft SQL Server is not open-source, but has a Linux version. Even a containerized Docker version. BUT it lacks many advanced features of the Windows version.

Their Linux packaging is also lackluster. Like missing dependencies. Or putting Ubuntu and Debian packages in the same repository and having "ubuntu" and "debian" in the version number, so that when you upgrade, you get Ubuntu version, because it sorts as a higher version alphabetically.

Then there is Visual Studio Code and claiming that Visual Studio now supports Linux, whereas it is a fork of Atom editor with custom plugins, and has absolutely nothing to do with Visual Studio.

So they are going in the right direction, but in a clumsy, backhanded way.

Like for example the proper Windows version of Docker (that runs Windows containers, not Linux) is especially half-assed, and only makes Windows users think that Docker sucks. Whereas it's only Windows version that sucks. Even running Linux containers on Windows works better than Windows containers on Windows.

And I am sure that is why Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) exists. Not because they actually want their users to use Linux, but because they know that they lost to Linux in the server market, and cannot pull off a compelling Windows-proper alternative.

So don't be fooled. They only love open-source and Linux because they have to.

No offense to all the brilliant people at Microsoft who are working on all of this. I am sure a lot of people there are just nerds who think that open-source and Linux are cool, and want nothing to do with all the shenanigans of managers and executives.

I really cannot imagine a developer going like "yeah, let's put all of this telemetry in Windows and collect all this data that is in no way relevant to identifying technical problems in the system." But while management can get their way, there will be shenanigans, there will be lobbying, and there will be shady anti-competitive deals.

(damn, I said Windows a lot)

Windows Subsystem for Linux is terrible, the performance on it is just bad... everything on it takes far longer than it should...

I don't trust Microsoft. Their response to open source has been a typical "embrace and extend" strategy. They're not trying to coexist with open source, they're trying to control it.

Yep. You can see that by the companies they're buying. Buying... not contributing to, you know, like you would do with open source. Same old MS.

In case you're wondering what ol' M$ is up to... here are some recent articles. See if you can spot the trend here. By the way, M$ stock has not suffered during the current pandemic.

July 2019 Microsoft wins multibillion-dollar cloud deal from AT&T

July 2019 Microsoft acquires BlueTalon to bolster its Azure Data Governance group

August 2019 Microsoft takes big gulp of Java with jClarity acquisition, further boosting Azure’s open-source cred

September 2019 Microsoft acquires cloud migration startup Movere to help companies transition to Azure

October 2019 Microsoft makes another cloud acquisition, swoops up file migration startup Mover

March 2020 Microsoft acquires Affirmed Networks, which helps telecoms grow their networks, ahead of 5G rush

May 2020 Metaswitch acquisition: Microsoft aims to emerge as a platform for telecom innovation

May 2020 Microsoft to invest $1.5 billion in Italian cloud business

May 2020 Microsoft announces a $1 billion digital transformation plan for Poland, including access to local cloud services with first datacenter region

May 2020 Microsoft to Buy Israeli Cybersecurity Startup CyberX


Casually mentioning that M$ has also bought Skype, LinkedIn, GitHub, Citus Data (developer of the open-source PostgreSQL) as well as countless gaming studios. There's no stopping this monster.

edit: forgot one.
May 2020 Microsoft to open first data center in New Zealand as cloud usage grows

We can't know how many datacenters M$ have since they won't tell us, but the M$ cloud has more than 100 datacenters serving ~60 regions covering 140 countries. Probably more.


Last edited by dpanter on 16 May 2020 at 3:48 pm UTC

I don't trust ANY big business, because every sufficiently large corporation in history has turned out to be evil. That being said, saying "sorry" goes a long way with me. It's certainly appreciated!

Let's be honest, MS won't open-source Windows anytime soon. It won't go THAT far. But with their focus now being cloud-services, they are well aware that the open source community is no longer a threat to them, because it no longer directly competes with them. On the contrary, they might even find a lot of OSS projects useful to them. Also, MS is probably aware as well as we are that they have lost the OS war. Yes, yes, they still have a near-monopoly on the desktop, but if you look at the ENTIRE devices market (which includes smartphones, tablets wearables etc.), they have a laughable market share these days.

So it makes sense, really. MS is probably better off embracing OSS these days than actively fighting it. It's the better business decision and they are a business.

I don't trust Microsoft. Their response to open source has been a typical "embrace and extend" strategy. They're not trying to coexist with open source, they're trying to control it.

Yep. You can see that by the companies they're buying. Buying... not contributing to, you know, like you would do with open source. Same old MS.

That is why Copy Left (GPL and the like) FOSS licensing is so important in my opinion. With FOSS they have to share improvements they use back with with the community and upstream projects. With Permissive OS (MIT and the like) licensing they do not.

Additionally when companies like Apple and Microsoft support Permissive OS licensing they co-opt good will as if they're supporting FOSS as well. This is because, in my opinion, FOSS and Permissive Open Source is generally so conflated now. Many (maybe most) people I interact with don't even perceive a difference between the two.

So when Microsoft says they see the errors of their ways with Open Source, I think they mean the kind of Open Source that primarily benefits them, not the FOSS that benefits the community. Yet, the message that is heard is that Microsoft loves GNU. They don't. If they did they would donate their patent portfolio to the FSF and GPL everything they own. Ha ha, yeah, that's a pipe dream.

I was never a fan of Microsoft. But starting a few years ago, i must admit that they made good progress in the right direction. In opposite to companies like Apple or Google...

And I am sure that is why Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) exists. Not because they actually want their users to use Linux, but because they know that they lost to Linux in the server market, and cannot pull off a compelling Windows-proper alternative.

I'm quite sure that WSL only exists in order to keep Linux Server developers and Administrators using the Windows desktop, and not loosing them to a Linux desktop like they lost on the server side.

I know there are a lot of Microsoft haters in the Linux world. I really don't like running Windows myself, either. However, I actually have a positive attitude about their acquisition of npm. It is super popular and needs some... stability and security expertise to take control.

And I am sure that is why Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) exists. Not because they actually want their users to use Linux, but because they know that they lost to Linux in the server market, and cannot pull off a compelling Windows-proper alternative.

I'm quite sure that WSL only exists in order to keep Linux Server developers and Administrators using the Windows desktop, and not loosing them to a Linux desktop like they lost on the server side.

I don't think so. It's to make it easier to manage Linux services that run on Azure. Now, admins and developers don't have to run a VM. I don't think MS was "losing" anybody to Linux that is now satisfied with WSL.

That is why Copy Left (GPL and the like) FOSS licensing is so important in my opinion. With FOSS they have to share improvements they use back with with the community and upstream projects. With Permissive OS (MIT and the like) licensing they do not.

Of course if Microsoft does happen to "borrow" from Copy Left projects, we would never know it because they'll never let anybody outside of their headquarters take a peek at their code.


Last edited by Mountain Man on 16 May 2020 at 6:21 pm UTC

For me, actions speak louder than words. If they actually open source some of their most used applications, then I might raise an eyebrow, otherwise I'm past the point of caring.

As someone that has worked in tech for 10 years and currently working for a company that is working through open sourcing an application, I can say that open sourcing something that was originally closed source isn't just as simple as "Here's the code". There are legal, political, and business ramifications that have to be worked through. Additionally, time has to be made to work through such things and MGMT/The Board are unlikely to allow revenue generating work to stop just to open source something.

Everytime there's 'good' news like this, I have to look at their product line and the way they're now rife with product ads and telemetry that can't be removed.

I have a family member with PTSD who was forced to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 recently and he's already smashed his keyboard to pieces twice because Windows 10 interrupted him during his PTSD therapy session. It's not a user-friendly OS.

They need to do a full 180-degree turn on the way they treat their users if they expect any love for the inclusion of Linux in their system. I'd much rather VM Windows in Linux and shut away all of its access to the internet at large than the other way around. There's no way M$ can be trusted with your data, as so many big companies right now.

as a c# dotnet developer/student I can confirm that microsoft want to support linux better there as well.
With dotnet you will also have better c++,c and c# support under linux in the future :).
They support it now, but its a bit terrible at the moment.

talking is cheap, show me the code!

also, WSL dont help linux desktop.
WSL makes windows have all the features of linux desktop, wich means no one would see an reason to use linux instead.

Hindsight is 20/20

Let them support Vulkan instead of DirectX. Then I actually might believe it.


Last edited by Shmerl on 17 May 2020 at 2:09 am UTC

Yes also MS Office and Defender not only for servers but desktops.

They wont open source ms office because it accounts for so much revenue from business licences and i do not care who you are or what you say yes open source office suites have gotten so much better over the last 10 years however if you work for business and they are a serious company they use office because it is the industry standard now how it go to be the industry standard is whole other conversation. Do i believe they have changed nope do i believe they are embracing linux in an attempt to make a proprietary server flavour of windows yes one that part open source and just enough code so they can copyright it.

And I am sure that is why Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) exists. Not because they actually want their users to use Linux, but because they know that they lost to Linux in the server market, and cannot pull off a compelling Windows-proper alternative.

I'm quite sure that WSL only exists in order to keep Linux Server developers and Administrators using the Windows desktop, and not loosing them to a Linux desktop like they lost on the server side.

I don't think so. It's to make it easier to manage Linux services that run on Azure. Now, admins and developers don't have to run a VM. I don't think MS was "losing" anybody to Linux that is now satisfied with WSL.

I also see developers use WSL instead of a Linux VM on their Windows machines. Since a lot of development stuff isn't available for Windows and since they deploy their work to Linux servers anyway, it was always a hassle to run a separate VM. But none of the WSL users I know would even consider using Linux on the desktop. My sample size is only 4 people but they all say the same: I use it to get rid of VMs.

Though with Docker and Kubernetes working on Windows, maybe that use case is going to disappear at some point.


Last edited by psy-q on 17 May 2020 at 8:37 am UTC

Still they are evil of software ecosystem. apple is hardware and software evil tho.
Yet i see these words are steps of a evolution of MS company. They will become main suplier for Linux Desktop (or devices) in the far future. Maybe a game producer or mass app producer for Linux powered süper hyper quantum devices of our kids..
But for now let say They are still evil and we dont know what are they hiding.