It seems to use an ARM instruction set and Cortex A57 design. ARM is technically not USA, this doesn't show well to Russia's competitive ability IMO.
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
@Bass: Can't say I'm using it much but I have tried it couple times in Fedora. Doesn't take even a minute to run Linux distro in the Docker container.
installation: 'sudo dnf install docker-io'
start: 'sudo systemctl start docker'
run Fedora in Docker: 'sudo docker run -i -t fedora /bin/bash'
It is nice to see Linux desktops (like GNOME) are going to use container as well.
Those who finds Docker interesting are most likely interested also:
kdbus: http://lwn.net/Articles/580194/ - https://github.com/gregkh/kdbus
systemd (nspawn): https://plus.google.com/+KaySievers/posts/YUyhJuyaRph
Thanks for the input. There seems to be a really big ecosystem of stuff around LXC/Docker. This is an interesting link for some more examples.
The government plan is to replace Windows with GNU/Linux and Intel/AMD chips with domestically developed "Baikal" chips.
cgroups is the Linux kernel feature that makes Docker possible.
Unless they are contributing using a personal e-mail address, nobody from Microsoft contributed anything to Docker.
git shortlog -sen | grep -i 'microsoft'
Indeed. Perhaps the wrong audience, but anyone here use Docker at all? I'm just curious on how it is being used in practice.
Well one example: Amazon forked Android completely, they don't answer to Google at all. In theory any OEM can do this, but most don't think its worth the effort arguably because Android is royalty-free anyway. If Google started charging even $1 per device for Android I think a lot of the big OEMs would suddenly have a change of heart.
Can you have them give a proper demo and go over the capabilities? The preview video has like 5 seconds of actual content and 1 1/2 minutes of marketing clips of generic people doing serious business(tm).
Part of the patent licensing game is not revealing your hand (what patents your competitors violate), because that gives them a chance to engineer around them or contest them. This is actually a big deal, wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft sues the Chinese government for releasing this list.
I guess comparing one to a GOP senator is rather mean-spirited. I apologize for that.
I might be confused by the point you're trying to make. If you're saying software vendors are relegated to giving it away for free because of the futility of fighting piracy (as opposed to arguing that companies should give away software on principle), then you might have a point. However, as you pointed out, Microsoft has been successful at selling software despite this. Why would it be so difficult for a company with the means of Google to do the same? After all, Google is flush with cash and now has a market capitalization that exceeds that of Microsoft.
You missed the part where I said: "What makes Microsoft so successful in this, is they need to enforce copyright on OEMs and big businesses mostly. It's harder if you are selling to the general public."
Maybe eventually Google will start trying to sell Android. But more likely, they won't, because some OEM will just fork Android and not pay Google a dime. Don't feel too bad for Google though, because Android itself is a fork of a bunch of FOSS technologies.
It's not just in non-Microsoft ecosystems. The fact that Microsoft is giving away Windows in significant parts of the market (zero license fee for small/mid tablets and smartphones), should perhaps give you an indication of the way the market is going. Paid licensing is no longer a real business option in many cases, which is fanbaby's original point IIRC. If you can get away with doing it, go right ahead. But there is whole other set of ways to make a living while writing software.