@PerfectPhase: Yes, i've seen that, nice!
WHat's left is to make Chakra open source and cross platform.
Here's an idea for MS: embed TypeScript into Chakra to speed things even more.
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
Hope this article isn't behind a paywall for you:
It makes sense to me. A cloud provider's security team dwarfs many IT departments.
I hope I'm not offending anyone here whose livelihood rests on Active Directory.
It's not whether the UI is a step back or not ;) it's:
This is the story behind it: http://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2015/05/12/bringing-node-js-to-windows-10-iot-core/
@evildictaitor: Let me understand you, what i'm hearing from you is:
Is that accurate? Any additions
"Each task maps to a set of Linux processes running in a container on a machine . The vast majority of the Borg workload does not run inside virtual machines (VMs), 1 There are a few exceptions for each of these relationships. because we don't want to pay the cost of virtualization. Also, the system was designed at a time when we had a considerable investment in processors with no virtualization support in hardware."
Source: The borg paper.
Google reveling a little of what it was up to a few years ago. The rest of the industry is looking in awe and quietly taking notes,
EDIT: I guess that what didn't make sense to me (before looking at the paper) didn't make sense to Google either ;)
I disagree. I don't think that Google, who more or less started using and promoting containers, runs containers in a VM. It make no sense. COntainers bring you isolation.
Havine said that, i'm not saying that the deployment side of things isn't important, after all they are called containers :)
Containers brought you OS independence (in the linux distributions/cloud providers sense, not Windows), and that is great for deployment
I get that bashing Microsoft is a fun trend in these forums, but I really can't understand why letting small companies choose to deploy to server environments more reliably, cheaply and effectively is controversial. If you want to deploy to Windows Server 2016, you can now use containers. If you prefer not to, don't. Simple.
Where did you get any bashing? I was just trying to understand. And I think I do. ANother TLDR:
That's the beauty of containers: