Azure Linux 4.0 is Microsoft's first general-purpose Linux
77 points by haydenbarnes 3 hours ago | 49 comments

codycharris 2 hours ago
No it's not. It's for tuned for Azure. Nobody is running this outside of their compute environment.
reply
jraph 31 minutes ago
Yeah, a general purpose distro would come with a desktop environment and you'd be able to run it on your PC as your main OS. Calling this general purpose is so misleading.

Of course describing reality in titles would have the inconvenience of causing fewer clicks to these articles.

The title on HN could be updated though.

reply
osigurdson 2 hours ago
You may be right, its possible however that people running on Azure may use it locally for testing.
reply
VincePlatt 2 hours 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.
reply
haydenbarnes 2 hours 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).
reply
znpy 25 minutes ago
I don’t know really. Amazon AL2023 can be used outside aws for example, and people might want the same distro on-prem as the cloud.

It’s not the average joe/jane though.

reply
aykutseker 4 minutes ago
Moving from tdnf to dnf5 is interesting. Most internal platforms get more bespoke over time, not less.
reply
froh 2 hours 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?

reply
starkgoose 18 minutes ago
I fell like this could be a move to purposefully mislead and confuse "Normies" of what to expect from "general purpose Linux" means.
reply
PacificSpecific 2 hours ago
Don't worry you aren't. Luckily no one will use this distro day to day
reply
steve1977 35 minutes ago
I'd say old fashioned Linux would come without any certification or support.
reply
haydenbarnes 2 hours ago
ISV certification is coming.

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

reply
hsbauauvhabzb 32 minutes ago
AFAIK it isn’t a declared term my left shoe is my first general purpose operating system, if i toss an esp32 in there i can probably call it linux too.
reply
ramon156 29 minutes ago
How desperate is Microsoft right now? Their model website was trying hard to be Anthropic, now they claim they have a linux distro? Which is just a tuned version?

What's next?

reply
jdw64 23 minutes ago
What advantages does Azure Linux have compared to Ubuntu?
reply
speedgoose 6 minutes ago
It's from Microsoft. Many companies love to be very tightly tied to Microsoft, for some reasons. I never really understood the actual underlying reasons. Perhaps Windows 95 was that good and it's brand loyalty since.
reply
gnabgib 2 hours 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

reply
mattoxic 2 hours 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.

reply
WD-42 2 hours ago
Do people not realize that this just instantly torpedoes credibility and respect? I'm dumbfounded.
reply
fortran77 16 minutes ago
Microsoft was a *nix supporter from the very beginning, with Microsoft Xenix.
reply
drnick1 2 hours 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.
reply
Krutonium 2 hours 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.

reply
999900000999 2 hours 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.

reply
overfeed 14 minutes ago
> They could of also pulled an Oracle , claimed the APIs are copyrighted and sued.

They did, well - not the suing part, but everything else in your sentence; including helping Oracle "pull an Oracle". In 2013, Microsoft filed an Amicus brief in support of Oracle's[1] position, appealing against a judges ruling that APIs cannot be copyrighted. At the time, Microsoft were also trying to get an Android-compatible runtime on Windows off the ground, which was incredibly awkward. They came to their right mind by the time 2019 rolled by and the case had been appealed to the Supreme Court. At this occasion, Microsoft switched teams and filed an amicus in support of Google. I don't know if Microsoft's 2016 release of WSL had anything to do with it.

1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/microsoft-forese...

reply
Topgamer7 2 hours ago
Technically they gave mono to the wine project
reply
makeitdouble 59 minutes ago
DeathArrow also touches on this, but to complete:

Windows stopped being the Golden Goose a long time ago, probably from the point Satya Nadella 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.

[Edit: fixed the CEO name]

reply
murkt 32 minutes ago
Sundar Pichai does not work in Microsoft, though. A bit weird to anchor the MS timeline on his position. When he became the CEO, actually? I don’t remember the year even approximately
reply
madspindel 25 minutes ago
Pretty sure he meant Satya Nadella but picked the wrong name...
reply
makeitdouble 26 minutes ago
Sorry it was a brain fart. I meant Satya Nadella.
reply
murkt 7 minutes ago
Ah, okay, my bad. Got too focused on the name. Googled the dates, Satya became CEO in 2014 and Sundar became CEO in 2015, so it’s actually not that different, especially when we look at the events more than a decade later.
reply
DeathArrow 2 hours 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.

reply
santoshalper 2 hours 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.
reply
kenjackson 2 hours 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.

reply
warumdarum 52 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?
reply
kenjackson 15 minutes ago
Probably some amount. I agree Windows is strategic, but do definitely could see them giving it away and/or fully open sourcing it.
reply
smitty1e 2 hours ago
[laughs in Torvalds.]
reply
nullpoint420 3 hours ago
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish anyone? Although, as a Fedora user I'm happy it's RPM based.
reply
giancarlostoro 3 hours 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).
reply
saghm 2 hours 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.
reply
brokencode 2 hours 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.

reply
nullpoint420 2 hours ago
Agreed on the Google front here.
reply
greenavocado 2 hours ago
That's why they're pushing hardware attestation so aggressively
reply
tossit444 2 hours 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...

reply
yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours 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.

reply
mhitza 2 hours 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...>

reply
fragmede 2 hours 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.
reply
tigerlily 2 hours ago
Extinguish Windows morelike...
reply
unethical_ban 2 hours ago
Tldr a MSFT maintained fedora fork tuned for Azure hardware.
reply