How to make Azure more appealing to Java and Open Source developers
Putting on the glitz
Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything
Comment Microsoft has been reaching out to developers who use third-party languages and applications with a raft of initiatives and announcements.
Many developers are surprised when by the comprehensiveness of the company’s Interoperability Bridges and Labs Center.
But it has to do more to win Java and Open Source developers over to Azure.
It’s an interesting time for Microsoft. At a time of recession, consolidation and migration are the watch-words as people try to squeeze value from their legacy applications. As we move to the cloud and platform as a service, the operating system is becoming less relevant and it's value for money and cost savings that matter.
Ironically, many non .NET applications are easier to port to Azure because they have fewer Windows-specific dependencies. They don't write to the registry, nor do they need elevated privileges or sophisticated installation. Many Java apps are very self-contained with a clear abstraction over their operating environment.
Here are a few suggestions as to what it would take to make Azure more appealing to the wider developer community.
Lower cost
Yes there are deals, incentives and extra small instances, but it is still expensive to host a simple blog on Azure. Extra small instances are still in Beta.
The Development Fabric is not a good starting point. Developers need to use the cloud for real. If you appeal to geeks as spare-time hacks they will transfer their skills back to their day jobs.
Azure needs a loss leader.
More TCP ports
Five ports really isn't enough. Java people use sockets for everything, from AJP to LDAP, Web and so on. If you want to use Microsoft’s new Remote Desktop facilities as well, you have even less to play with.
Secure Shell (SSH)
Telnet and FTP are not secure and RDP is overkill for quick systems admin tasks. SSH access is fast, flexible and secure, so why isn't it included as an option with Windows?
A good porting layer
I know we have Cygwin, MingW and VisualC++, but whatever happened to Microsoft's Services for Unix or the Portable Operating System Interface for Unix support?
./configure make make install
The above works seamlessly on most Unixes and Mac OS X. Why does the build have to be complicated for Windows?
A package management system
apt-get install
works on Linux and
brew install
works on OS X. What about Windows?
NuGet has now been released to provide some package management facilities on Windows, but it doesn’t provide compatibility with the wealth of open source software that’s already out there.
Whatever happened to the CoApp, the Common Opensource Application Publishing Platform?
A package management system is not the same thing as an app store. ®
Rob Blackwell is the R&D director of Active Web Solutions Ltd, a Suffolk, UK software developer specialising in the Windows Azure platform. The views he expresses in this article are his own and were originally published on his personal blog.
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
COMMENTS
So basically...
...make Windows more like *nix? Why not just cut out the middle man and go *nix?
If .Net is going to be such a pain to port to Azure, the incremental cost of re-implementation on another platform won't be much more and will be off-set by the gains in efficiency (purchase, maintenance etc).
Lets face it "cloud" is just the 1970/80s with a bit of virtualisation (and lots of PR puffery). A big server sharing its resources is exactly the arena *nix was designed to work in. If that is already fit for purpose, why waste time on Azure?
Probably too hard to fix
SFU was an acquisition that Microsoft didn't really want to support but threw out as lipservice to cross compatibility. They didn't want people to use it unless they had to and they certainly didn't want people being comfortable with it if they did.
Thus it felt cobbled together, retrograde, bloaty and everything else. I think the only thing most people used it for was as a NFS client which is something Cygwin doesn't do although it can be an NFS server.
Very true
Quite. Anyone that has used MS Services for Unix knows what a horrible beast it is. The cynical side of me says it was/is like that on purpose but I digress.
Personally I setup cygwin with portage, a package management system, on top of that for a project at work that needed *nix like stuff for windows.

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring