5261797
story
Comments: 362 +- News: Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers As GPL on Monday July 20 2009, @12:10PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Monday July 20 2009, @12:10PM
from the could-easily-be-world's-largest-open-source-distributor dept.
from the could-easily-be-world's-largest-open-source-distributor dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgnu.gif); width:50px; height:76px;
gnu
mjasay writes "Microsoft used to call the GPL 'anti-American.' Now, as Microsoft releases Hyper-V Linux Integration Components (LinuxIC) under the GPL (version 2), apparently Microsoft calls the GPL 'ally.' Of course, there was little chance the device drivers would be accepted into the Linux kernel base unless open source, but the news suggests a shift for Microsoft. It also reflects Microsoft's continued interest in undermining its virtualization competition through low prices, and may suggests concern that it must open up if it wants to fend off insurgent virtualization strategies from Red Hat (KVM), Novell (XEN), and others in the open-source camp. Microsoft said the move demonstrates its interest in using open source in three key areas: 1) Make its software development processes more efficient, 2) product evangelism, and 3) using open source to reduce marketing and sales costs or to try out new features that highlight parts of the platform customers haven't seen before."
Related Stories
Microsoft Makes Second GPLv2 Release 218 comments
Microsoft's Code Contribution Due To GPL Violation 508 comments
Linux: Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease" 634 comments
SFLC Says Microsoft Violated the GPL 237 comments
Linux: Red Hat Releases Windows Virtualization Code 183 comments
It is sweet to let the mind unbend on occasion.
-- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Hell called (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget Microsoft's strategy: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
I heard reasonable arguments about that being true for the Ms-PL [opensource.org] but I thought the GPL (v2 and v3) were supposed to be embraceable and extensible but nearly non-extinguishable ... once the code is out there, just fork it. Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL? I'd be shocked that no one's tried it yet if it's possible.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL?
They can sue for infringement of software patents [google.com].
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
Even the GPL v.2 has this to say about patents:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
So basically, if MS holds patents on the code they are contributing, my reading of the GPL says they can't contribute it (or can't enforce said patents).
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so their motive here is try this in court and invalidate the entire GPL!
See, I knew we couldn't trust them.
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this protect against the Hyper-V product being changed to be incompatible with the GPL drivers in the future. What guarentee do we have that compatibility will be maintained or the drivers updated?
GPL drivers don't do much good if they aren't compatible with the hypervisor. Otherwise we'd be using Xen drivers on Hyper-V wouldn't we?
I know I'm jumping to conclusions a bit, but this is a company with a very long history of this kind of behavior. Even after several court cases and many
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
Second, we have a roadmap for the drivers that includes improvements to performance and manageability, including features like SMP support. These have been requested by our customers and are part of the engineering plan for these drivers.
Third, our maintenance plan for the drivers includes submitting patches to the kernel maintainers; and the process that Greg K-H and the team follow is designed to ensure that drivers can continue to be compatible with the kernel even if the kernel's model for device drivers changes.
Ultimately it will be the market success of this technology that will ensure its ongoing development by Microsoft - as we do with any product. So far the signs are good.
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
I know this will probably sound snarky but I don't honestly get it. Why exactly would you want to run Linux server as a guest and have Windows server as the host? That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, and I'm a Windows guy.
I think you're confused. Hyper-V is a hypervisor, not host-based virtualisation. It runs on the bare metal, with a privileged Windows VM for management tasks (equivalent to dom0 on Xen, or the Service console on ESX).
You might want to use Hyper-V to run Linux because you have already committed to Hyper-V for your virtualisation infrastructure. This may be as simple as just having a single Hyper-V server running only one or two VMs, or as complete as multiple hosts with a substantial amount of established processes and procedures for managing that virtualisation infrastructure.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...While you are distributing the code.
(Trust can be lost in a day, but takes a lifetime to earn. MS has spent a lifetime abusing trust. If they want it back, they will have to prove they deserve it.)
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Interesting)
Sam, does this mean that this GPLv2 release was actually negotiated and coordinated with Linux kernel developers? If so, it would be interesting to hear more about that side of it. So far I have found this [kroah.com]:
Q: Why release the code?
A: Because we have utilized Linux code, Microsoft has an obligation to open source the device drivers. This is the process outlined by the Linux community.
Q: Why open source the code?
A: Because this is a requirement of the community, and critical in ensuring that as the Linux Kernel evolves, and as Hyper-V evolves, that the Hyper-V Linux Device Drivers evolve as well.
But this is rather vague - it's not clear where the "requirement of the community" comes from; is it implied, or was it specifically talked about?
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
This was the gentle advice we got from Greg K-H and we took it seriously. The more we thought about it, the more it made sense to follow Rosen's [wikipedia.org] first law of open source licenses - "use the license of the community that you want to contribute to."
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Funny)
A) Ok. I believe that. Because Microsoft is such a trustworthy and all around nice company.
B) "Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
-- meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454) [slashdot.org]
C) Microsoft employees? On my Slashdot?? ;)
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not the fanboys who wont change their minds are not a majority. Many are just cautious and have many doubts due to past experience. Such doubts don't vanish overnight, and aren't helped by dismissive comments like the parent here.
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo. As much as I hate MS, I would absolutely make an about face on my opinions if they started joining in on putting things in under GPLv3 (without skirting it's intent). That's all I ask. I don't get why they don't, the whole marketplace would support them if they did so. I guess they don't like expanding marketshare in ways that benefits everyone as opposed to themselves (PS microsoft: this is how you make friends instead of enemies).
Parent
Re:People in the U.S. culture can be very misleadi (Score:5, Informative)
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
Parent
Explanation of why people are so untrusting: (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has a long, long history of letting its mid-level managers and employees believe one thing, when the top managers intend something else, something very unfriendly and sneaky.
For example, Microsoft employees believed that they would be allowed to finish their work. But, in spite of strong opposition inside Microsoft, Windows Vista was released.
Other products released before they were finished:
Windows XP (Okay after SP2, a lot of grief before)
Windows ME
DOS 3.0
Since Microsoft has acted against the best interests of its customers in many ways in the past, people think that will happen this time.
I listened to this interview of you: Sam Ramji of Microsoft Tells all [sun.com]. It's obvious that you are intelligent and well-meaning. I would tend to trust anything you say if you have control over it. However, I think it is likely that you have no control. I'm guessing that it is likely that some vicious Microsoft top manager has some plan to cause trouble.
Why do I think that? Because sneaky behavior by Microsoft has cost me tens of thousands of dollars over the years.
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Informative)
Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL?
They can sue for infringement of software patents [google.com].
Um. Okay, let's dissect this. Microsoft has released device drivers under the GPLv2 which states:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Emphasis mine. I would find it more than hilarious to see the reaction on the faces at the EFF if Microsoft tried to sue someone who modifies/redistributes/forks this GPLv2 licensed code. By Microsoft releasing this under the GPL, Microsoft has basically announced there are no patents or copyrights on this code--otherwise they would not have been able to license it under the GPL. If so, Microsoft would have no one to sue but themselves before they demand people stop using the code.
I'm still not convinced on your argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm as cautious as the next guy. But isn't the GPL pretty rigorous (even v2) at protecting us from our fears?
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, Microsoft would have no one to sue but themselves before they demand people stop using the code.
I'm going to take this move at face value and assume that Microsoft is just doing something non-evil. But the notion still amuses me that they could be so fractured that one department may make a move like this only to be sued by another.
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it as an amoral (ie neither moral or immoral) part of their marketing strategy.
They are doing this for the simple reason that they want to sell more copies of Windows Hyper-V server. People buy hypervisors because they want to run different operating systems on the one computer. One of the operating systems they will want to run is Linux, and if Hyper-V server doesn't run Linux guests well, they are more likely to chose another hypervisor than chose a different operating system for their guest machine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has released device drivers under the GPLv2
Yes, but Microsoft is the licenser, not the licensee, and as such they are not bound by the license terms! It's their "property"; they own the copyright, so they don't need a license to use or distribute it. So your argument kind of falls on its face. Clause 7 does not apply to them (unless they try to distribute the whole kernel, not just one driver), but it applies to us, so if MS asserts a patent claim, it's everyone who is/was distributing the kernel with the contaminated code who needs to stop distr
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Informative)
They could have.
No, they couldn't have, at least not if they wanted it to be distributable with Linux (which was kinda the point). The Linux kernel is GPL v.2 only, which is incompatible with the GPL v.3.
Furthermore, even the GPL 2 provides some protection against patents, as a couple people have pointed out.
In short, FUD.
Parent
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad the software in question is released under the GPL V2 which doesn't have patent clauses in them.
You know, except for the part that says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Which only applies to you when you try to distribute it; this does not cover the initial distribution by Microsoft (one of the flaws which were corrected in GPLv3).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given Microsoft's attacks on GPL as a license, I just do not understand why they licensed it GPL instead of LGPL or BSD
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just tone deafness at whatever level the commitment was initiated at (I would speculate that the people actually working on the product and wanting to release the code had to take that request to somebody who could actually commit to the release; the yes probably left his desk with a certain license named, and the legal approval process didn't address/bother changing it).
Re:Hell called (Score:4, Insightful)
Because kernel patches have to be GPLv2?
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
GPL3 is different than GPL 2. This was GPL2, meaning it's only covered by Microsoft's "covenant".
Re:Hell called (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual way is to make their tools and solutions cheap/free, and get people to build their entire operation (code, infrastructure,etc.) around it. Require enough infrastructure that rebuilding is very expensive. Then, once the industry has managed to use your software as the center of their infrastructure, hammer them.
All they seemed to do was ensure linux will run on HyperV, something it has not previously done well, and which puts MS at a disadvantage. Thus customers have not been adopting that platform in droves. Now they'll have fewer excuses not to. Nothing prevents MS from later making the LinuxIC tools incompatible at a later date (or just letting them atrophy, as the technology develops).
Just don't use Microsoft products ever again...if you want to run a business you really shouldn't put all your eggs in their basket anyway.
Parent
stand by for heavy rolls (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps Microsoft's lawyers found a weakness in the GPL, or they want to litigate the FSF into the ground.
"Beware of G[r]eeks bearing gifts".
Interoperability to defend Windows business (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess a few years Microsoft finally got the memo that they can't protect sales of Windows by attempting to force lock-in to their entire Windows ecosystem. They realized that many of their customers mix technologies together. Examples are Java/JBoss on Windows server, Windows desktops and Linux servers (Samba), working with Mozilla developers to port Firefox to Vista, and iPhones connecting to Exchange servers (licensing ActiveSync to Apple).
By taking these actions, Microsoft ensures the continued relevance of the Windows platform instead of potentially dooming it to a proprietary ghetto.
The flip side of this focus is that Microsoft will still push Windows to OEMs to fend off other platforms. An example is their actions in the netbook space among which was to essentially give away XP. So for at least some things, Microsoft is still up to their old tricks.
I'm impressed... NOT! (Score:5, Interesting)
Some drivers to make Linux work better inside MS's Windows Server Hyper-V virtualization platform? How altruistic...
I'll be more impressed when MS, for example, helps with the SAMBA project. Or at least, doesn't actively screw up with such interop projects from the FOSS community. No GPL code required, just give people decent, up-to-date, open specs; and no patents bullshit.
Or at very least, when MS stops enforcing such patents (see TomTom / FAT32, or again SMB in MS/Novell "agreement").
Re:I'm impressed... NOT! (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you mean like this: http://www.onekit.com/store/review/microsoft_deal_gives_samba_access_to_windows_protocol_documentation.html [onekit.com]
Also, did you consider that TomTom had some patents on thing MS might be using, and thus only sued to get a deal to be struck? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/20/0215215 [slashdot.org]
Na... just let your beliefs obscure any facts.
Parent
Greeting Fellow Multiversers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is going to kill VMWare (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Microsoft gets upset if any other company talks to the BIOS besides them. Here's a page from VMWare [vmware.com] that compares their own product to Microsoft's Hyper-V. Hyper-V only debuted as a beta a year ago and they're already compromising company policy to release Linux kernel level code.
Wikipedia page for Hyper-V [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i think most people are missing the point...
the move on microsofts part is to help its partners (citrix and xenserver) product line and provide easier means for transfer of vms between the two. both of which have a goal of crushing vmware.
once vmware is toppled, and microsoft has full interopratability with citrix/xenserver, microsoft can then transition to knock citrix/xenserver out of the market and become the virtual machine leader...
this is just an intermediate step needed to further this goal
Re:Microsoft is going to kill VMWare (Score:4, Interesting)
This is so timely. I spent the last 3 days fighting VMWare. Microsoft don't need to try and kill VMWare. VMware is doing an excellent job of that by itself. We are a small gov branch that spend a measly $40,000 a year with VMWare and then we realised that why shouldn't we get educational discounts from VMWare. We get top level discounts from MS,Novell,Oracle etc.
VMWare, nope sorry. No can do. After 3 days of getting to the right person the answer was no, because your courses you teach aren't long enough. FFS!
So I mentioned that we had a top line educational select agreement with MS, and Hyper V is free! They really didn't give a toss. Give it a year and they will be so hurting. It's a pity because the software is top notch but there is no "getting the business" aspect of it. Once Hyper V is matured, they are done!
Parent
Big deal. Such drivers are trivial. (Score:4, Informative)
Big deal. Such drivers are trivial.
Virtualizing physical I/O devices on PC-like architectures requires code in the hypervisor to emulate the device. The driver in the operating system does stores into "device registers" as if talking the real device. Each such store or load causes a trap to the hypervisor, which has a device emulator watching the register changes and pretending to be the real peripheral. When the right registers have been loaded with the right values, and the final register store is made that would start the I/O operation, the device emulator then figures out what the OS wanted to do, and makes a call to the hypervisor's I/O system to do it.
In many cases, the device driver in the OS is doing all the optimization for the device controller of a real disk, doing angular optimization and head movement minimization. Since the real device underneath may be completely different, most of this is wasted work, and may reduce performance instead of increasing it.
So it's common to have dummy device drivers for virtual machines that just pass the OS's request through to the hypervisor, without trying to manage a real device. Such drivers don't do much, and are usually trivial, although Microsoft will probably try to complicate them somehow.
This isn't a new idea; it first appeared in IBM's VM for the System/370, where such calls were passed through using the DIAGNOSE instruction (an opcode used for hardware diagnostics only, and thus never used in ordinary programs and available as a spare opcode.)
One of the hypervisor vendors calls this "paravirtualization".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh right. And IBM c.s. is run by a bunch of code-hugging hippies and they function as a charity to release code for the improvement of the world.
How *could* I have missed that?
Re:What hidden dangers? (Score:5, Insightful)
With IBM, their value proposition was quite clear and we could get along happily. Microsoft is a much trickier case. They frequently do things that are not necessarily in their best interest in the short term in order to destroy their competition and achieve long-term control.
And this results in things like IE languishing for years because nobody else is a credible threat in the browser arena. People who say that Microsoft is simply interested in making things better for their customers are blind. Microsoft had no interest in making IE better because they had no interest in the browser as a platform. It did not further their ability to control.
Microsoft would prefer a smaller and less innovative market that they completely owned to a much larger market in which they were simply a player, even if they could make a bigger profit in the larger market.
So your request to look for hidden dangers is a cogent one. And we should be looking for dangers in which Microsoft sacrifices profitability for control and destroying competition. Microsoft has repeatedly shown a willingness to do that in the past.
Parent
The motives are quite simple (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a mixed environment and need to host both Linux VMs and Windows VMs with optimal performance, until now VMWarea and Xen were your best options, because Linux performed sub-optimally under Hyper-V.
Now with this patch Linux will probably perform just as good under Hyper-V as it does in VMWare and Xen.
So now you might be able to be convinced to host your VMs on MIcrosoft's Hyper-V platform, where before it was not even an option.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, I think that's the crux of it. It's a point of control. If they can remain the closest to the hardware, they control the system no matter what's running on it. If they can get Linux to run under Windows and they successfully outpace other VMs, then they can start adding "compatibility" code and making Linux perform worse than Windows Virtual systems.
It's also well documented that Microsoft would rather give away their technology to get people using it than let people use a competitor.
Re:What hidden dangers? (Score:5, Insightful)
God the paranoia on this site is thick. It increases the value of Hyper-V to Microsoft clients, as their Linux virtual machines will run more efficiently in it. That's it. That's all. Relax. Breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes until you're under control again. The sky is not falling. Dogs and cats are not sleeping together.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy -- they think people will be more likely to use Microsoft's HyperV if its Linux performance is better. They're in competition with other virtualization software makers. They can either release an appropriate Linux driver or tell HyperV users to have decreased Linux performance and functionality. Clearly they think the former is a better business deal. It doesn't really add a lot to Linux, since if you're in the market for virtualization, you probably aren't trying to decide if your guests will run Linu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL is about maintaining control.
The GPL is about maintaining control huh? Tell that to Oracle. Who has control over the future of MySQL? Oracle or the people who are contributing code to it?
Re:The Thing M$ Likes about the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hyper-V [wikipedia.org]
Basically, its a virtualization system that runs as a role on Server 2008. Parts of it work a lot like VirtualPC does (Microsoft's desktop virtualizaton system) but it also has some nice features such as automatic save-state when the host OS is shutting down which also can automatically restore when the host OS comes back up and starts the Hypver-V role.
Re:Hyper-V? Never heard of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hyper-virtualisation. Running OS's under other OS's. In other words, this is a patch for Linux to make it run well on Microsoft systems, so customers will feel less need to actually install Linux on servers. It's not a friendly gesture to make normal Linux systems work better, as the title suggests.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hyper-virtualisation. Running OS's under other OS's. In other words, this is a patch for Linux to make it run well on Microsoft systems, so customers will feel less need to actually install Linux on servers. It's not a friendly gesture to make normal Linux systems work better, as the title suggests.
I think I'm way more likely to virtualize *Windows* servers on a Linux host than otherwise. The company I work for doesn't run Windows on bare metal anymore.
A good reason for that is that Windows isn't really administrable via a serial console, so that if networking is blown, you'd require either an iLO/DRAC type hardware solution or would have to go with relatively costly KVM over IP.
Honestly, I don't think this is big news. The host component isn't being opensourced, so you need a Windows-whatever server
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.