Ironically, telemetry information, and it’s a slim host os. At least from a corpo-tech perspective. It’s nicely integrated into azures dashboards, logs and monitoring tools that kind of thing
Its for their cloud instances. Just like you wouldn’t actually run Amazon Linux. If you’re using their cloud platform it’s absolutely the best option, but in all other scenarios you wouldn’t think to touch it
I don’t think it’s comparable to Amazon Linux even, it’s more infrastructure oriented. From the Wikipedia page:
CBL-Mariner is being developed by the Linux Systems Group at Microsoft for its edge network services and as part of its cloud infrastructure.[5] The company uses it as the base Linux for containers in the Azure Stack HCI implementation of Azure Kubernetes Service
If there is one thing Microsoft is struggling with it’s naming things. I work mostly with .NET and the regular renaming of products is just something you have to put up with. 🤷
It’s opensource, strongly typed, works very well on Linux, its neither Java nor JavaScript and there are lots of jobs available; so you wont hear me complaining.
This is so true. We can see it with their Xbox game consoles as well: Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X. I’m genuinely curious to see what comes next. Windows also was not very consistent in their naming: 3.11 (version numbering), 95 (suddenly year based), 98, 2000, Me (suddenly abbreviations or words based), XP, Vista, 7 (suddenly number based), 8, 10 (suddenly leaving out number 9), 11, 12. What a roller coaster.
And that’s only speaking about two line of products…
At least with jumping from Windows 8 to Windows 10 there was a realistic reason for it. I don’t remember the specifics but it was to reduce the risk of breaking third-party software coded with some janky way of determining Windows versions.
The rest of the naming jumps, I’m sure, were just the whims of whoever was in charge of the project at that time.
It mostly comes down to marketing reasons I assume. Me was marketed as in “Me”, the computer for personal usage. The second Xbox could not be named Xbox 2, because as we all know the 2 is less than the 3 in Playstation 3, and bigger number is better number, so it was named 360.
The whole skipping 9 was so older programs wouldn't misidentify Windows 9 as 95 or 98. They might have put other spin on it in marketing materials, but that was the actual technical reason for skipping 9.
Actually, you’re speaking about three product lines: Xboxes, regular old Windows, and Windows NT. Hence also the weird contortions with Windows Me (“Millennium Edition”): They couldn’t name it Windows 2000, because that version had been released half a year earlier. They couldn’t really name it Windows 2001 either, because that would have implied it being better than (or even related to) Windows 2000.
ME was an afterthought for Microsoft. Kind of an "oh shit" moment. Windows 2000 was meant to be the only OS in that release cycle, with a Home version for normies and the Professional version for the enterprise. They chickened out on moving normies to the NT kernel so soon, so ME was born.
They could’ve sold Windows 2000 as Windows NT 5 and Windows Me as Windows 2000; that would’ve kept the “NT X” versioning scheme for the professional line and the year-based scheme for the consumer line.
But the versioning scheme for the NT line is all kinds of weird in general. Windows 7 is NT 6.1. Windows 8 is NT 6.2. So we’ve established that the product name is independent of the version now. That means that Windows 10 is NT… 10.0. Windows 11 is also NT 10.0.
They could’ve sold Windows 2000 as Windows NT 5 and Windows Me as Windows 2000; that would’ve kept the “NT X” versioning scheme for the professional line and the year-based scheme for the consumer line.
That’s true of course. But iirc, Microsoft itself was on the fence of whether to release Me at all or whether to go straight to what would become XP, the release that united both lines of Windows. I guess that might explain somewhat why the NT product people felt it ok to steal the year-based versioning scheme of DOS-based Windows…?
True, although that made people think that Windows 2000 was the intended successor to Windows 98 – me included. Not that I minded; in my opinion Windows 2000 was straight up better than Windows XP until XP SP2 came out. Anyway, Microsoft spends far too much time getting cute with version numbers.
Add comment