Windows Services For Unix Now Free Of Charge

pole writes "Version 3.5 of Services for Unix will be free. Previously, it was $99. This article at Information Week has the details. It contains an NFS client and server in addition to POSIX libraries and utilities including pthreads. Aside from the NFS utilities, how does the environment compare to Cygwin?" An anonymous reader adds links to coverage at News.com and at geek.com, writing "The reviews for these tools have been highly favorable. It looks like the next volley has been fired in the struggle between Windows and Linux."

Microsoft motives?

[glinden]

Can you say, "embrace and extend?"

Thank you Microsoft

[Mongo222]

What a fantastic set of tools for people who are migrating thier windows boxes to a Linux/Unix envirornment. Glad they finally saw the light of day and are working to join us.

This could backfire on MS

[SkArcher]

The idea is obviously to encourage migration from Unix to Windows, but it can just as easily be used to encourage migration in the other direction.

It is to be hoped that such opportunities are taken up by people wishing to get the out of MS lock in in a gradual manner.

Good Old Econ 101

[stuffedmonkey]

We are really starting to see the results of constant economic pressure in Microsoft. Once a monopoly has real competition - it is forced to either *gasp* innovate or lower prices! I think in the coming years, All computer users will benefit from Linux - even if they never use it. Windows users will see lower prices and a somewhat friendlier Beast, and Mac users are already getting a ton of great open source product integreted into OS X.

Re:This could backfire on MS

[nate1138]

Regardless of whether or not it backfires, it _does_ help interoperability, and that is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it. Almost nobody is exclusively Unix or MS, nor should they necessarily be.

The only bitch I will have is if this is like other Microsoft attempts at "interoperability" where they break shit. Think kerberos, java, etc.

Good, but not great

[Telastyn]

Overall, services for unix is good. It provides many of the common unix utilities, and it integrates them into the shell [even just cmd] very well. Much better, and 'cleaner' than cygwin. Cygwin has *many* more tools though, and they work 'well enough'.

In my experience, using the two together [having SFU's directory in the path before cygwin's] gives you the best of both releases.

What is the plotline here?

[heironymouscoward]

Why does Microsoft want to support Unix/Linux applications on Windows? It does not seem to make sense. Every deployment of a portable application on Windows creates an opportunity for moving to Linux at a later stage (vis. OpenOffice).

Presumably the "Unix" services will include extensions that make the migration a one-way affair. Presumably also Microsoft have some killer Unix/Linux applications in mind that they want/need to be able run on Windows. Apache? Hmmm...

Presumably also the goal is to turn Windows into something closer to what corporate IT centers actually want.

It reminds me a lot of IBM's drive to include Unix-like features in OS/370. An obvious thing, to make one's OS POSIX-compliant. But all POSIX compliancy drives seem to lead to Linux.

So... the very first thing I thought when I first heard about this, and the thing I still think today is that this is the first step in the direction of a Microsoft-branded Linux distribution.

Re:Microsoft motives?

[NightSpots]

If Microsoft provides a client for Unix filesystems, they get "embrace and extend" comments.

If Microsoft doesn't, they get the "refusing to support open standards" comments.

What do you want them to do? Do you want them to attempt to work with Unix, or do you want them to completely ignore the fact that Unix exists?

Freedom?

[condition-label-red]

how does the environment compare to Cygwin?

One is licensed under GPL, and the other isn't....

Re:This could backfire on MS

[FortKnox]

The idea is obviously to encourage migration from Unix to Windows, but it can just as easily be used to encourage migration in the other direction.

Doubtful. Companies that are already Windows shops have a hard time taking all those windows documents and spreadsheets and power point presentations etc... and switching them over to a *nix equivalent (or standard format). The chances of a backfire are minimal.

The tools that do this were already available in the forms of SAMBA (and others). I'd say this is just a better way to help people switch from *nix environments to Windows (and MS is making it free so it isn't "worse than the open source solution").

Quite an ingenious decision on the part of MS, if I may say so.

Windows - *nix or *nix - Windows?

[deadmonk]

This is going to be interesting. Microsoft is doing everything it can to hobble OSS projects from interacting with their systems (note the explicit anti-GPL clause in the SMB documentation licenses) and yet they're using OSS tools to try to draw people onto their platform.

It's dirty fighting - they're taking every advantage afforded by the very kind of freedom they're actively trying to stamp out.

That's one of the unfortunate costs of freedom - some will use it against you. The OSS community is an open book, theirs is a very closely guarded hand of cards..

Here's the million dollar question: Is there anything that the OSS community can do to compete with this kind of underhandedness?

Re:so lets make this simple

[digitalsushi]

ah but i use linux because it is simple. hard to learn, simple to use. i quite find windows simple to learn, hard to use, and i fancy the elegance of plain text everything that i get with my linux server.

UNIX isn't Microsoft's chief competitor...

[Fortunato_NC]

They need to start offering "Windows Services for Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000", because this is where a lot of their customers hopped off the upgrade bus.

C'mon, raise your hands, how many of you are still administering a pair of Windows NT 4.0 domain controllers because Active Directory was overkill for your single-site 100 employee company? I know I am.

OpenNT - Inteix - SFU

[Noke]

First it was OpenNT [uniforum.org] from a comapny called Softway Systems [softway.com] which provided a fully POSIX-compliant subsystem replacement for NT.

Later, Softway renamed it to Interix [interix.com], and shortly after that Softway was bought out by Microsoft. At that time, the guts of Interix were used to make the 'Services for Unix'.

What the heck...

[starseeker]

"The real driver behind this [pricing] change is this interoperability issue," Oldroyd says. "We want Windows to be the best platform for interoperability."

Since when? Does this mean Windows Whatever'sNext will be able to read Mac and ext2 floppy disks? Does this mean their APIs and protocals will be more open to allow for better communication and cooperation with other platforms?

Or does this mean "We don't want Windows apps kicked out of Unix dominated businesses, and thus begin a general migration away from Microsoft software?"

Or is this a very clever move to get Unix houses to set up one Windows box with this on it in order to be able to interface with the outside world better, and thus give them some targets for the marketing department?

Monopolies aren't interested in interoperability - they're usually out to destroy it. Look this gift horse in the mouth very carefully - Microsoft is not trustworthy and anything they say or do is suspect. This could wind up being just a nice candy piece tossed to the Unix world, but I am forced to wonder what Microsoft is getting from it, and in what situations a $99 fee would stop someone where free is a go-ahead price. Not any big shops, that's for sure. Remember, with any Microsoft move the first rule is to ask what they are expecting to get out of it.

Re:What is the plotline here?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I'd actually be way more likely to use windows/be happier with the experience with better unix tool integration. If I'm just developing, I just want those tools to work good, I don't really care a whole heap about the OS. As it is now, whenever I get a new (non-telecommute) job (i'm a freelance programmer), I spend like a day mucking about with effing cygwin.

2) Microsoft has a long and weird relationship with Unix. On old MS roadmaps, Dos 5 or 6 was supposed to essentially linux. Don't forget about Xenix. They don't hate Unix, they hate not making money. If you can make more money by making MS more Unixy, they'll do it.

Samba is there but always playing catch up

[SmallFurryCreature]

If this is a real NFS then this is. ehm let me think about it.

Say a windows shop decides to introduce a *n(i|u)x fileserver. With samba they gotta make sure that any new windows version can talk to samba. Sure new windows versions don't appear every year but still often enough for it to be a concern. Especially with License 6.0 where you pay for the upgrade of windows anyway.

Now if the new windows can just talk for free to the nfs on the unix machine. Hmm, no longer an obstacle to upgrading. Then again no obstacle to using a unix machine either.

Mmmm, I think this may be a case were MS may neither lose nor win.

As for making it free. Did some NFS for windows maker piss of Bill Gates? If this is a good nfs and not one of ms'es standard embrace and break jobs then they are all out of business.

I want them to be upfront

[nurb432]

They are a shady company that isn't above immoral behavior to get ahead.

That is why this seemly good gesture is being scrutinized.

Microsoft misdirected

[DickBreath]

All anti MS rhetoric aside, this is a smart move for them to make. By making support for POSIX api's freely available, it allows someone to port a unix type app over with a re-compile and perhaps some changes to the make file.

I agree that it makes it easy to port applications by almost just recompiling. I disagree that it is a smart move.

This represents how Microsoft has been successfully misdirected. They do not have their eye on the ball.

The real threat in the short term is not Linux. It is all of the cross over software such as OpenOffice.org and Mozilla. While these things run on Windows, they make it even more likely that eventually masses of people will find fewer hurdles in switching to Linux.

When GUI programs become as easy to port to Windows by just recompiling, it will be attractive to developers to write to Linux, because for very little additional effort, you get both platforms. And more cross-platform software appears. Making it even easier to eventually switch to Linux (for people using cross platform software).

I disagree that this is a smart move. What exactly were they expecting? That masses of servers are going to switch to Apache on Windows because it is so much better?

A Possible Motive

[ratboy666]

If Microsoft wanted to change SMB (and lock out SAMBA), they would need some other network file system.

So, maybe, SFU is being released to allow claim that Microsoft based servers can share with NFS, and that SMB can now be modified to add additional (Longhorn) features, while locking the *nix world out (say, by encrypting the traffic and not telling how).

SAMBA becomes useless; and if executed properly, Windows shares become completely MS proprietary. Limited access to "competitive" OSs provided by NFS.

New features available to Windows ONLY.

If I were doing a strategy for MS, this is the path I would take. Also, ensure that NFS is available for a LONG lead time, and that it runs well.

But maybe I'm just a paranoid.

Ratboy.

Re:NFS client for win!

[psykocrime]

FINALLY, an NFS client for win!

Yeah, that sounds like the best aspect of this, to me. I've often wanted to mount NFS shares from Windows, but didn't want to shell out big bucks for an NFS package... this one will almost certainly become the defacto one now, which is a probably more or less a good thing.

Re:so lets make this simple

[jatencio]

Not only that, but IBM is IBM now and no longer an acronym. They dropped the name 'International Business Machines' a few years ago.

Lies or misconceptions?

[mr_mischief]

The GPLed code in question _must_ be available to the user, per the GPL. A particular person may charge you to give it to you, but they must give you the _source_. Therefore, the software is unleashed from any one master. That's a valid definition of "free", and the one in which most Free Software supporters are interested.

Not all OSes are the same, because some manage computers more efficiently, and most do so in differing and incompatible ways outside a small family of related OSes. A Yugo and a Porsche are both cars, but they are not the same. A farm tractor and a bicycle are even less the same.

Using an OS and changing the source are two different things. You don't have to have the source to use an OS. Having the source does, however, make it much easier to improve it or customize it. No, you don't have to be a programmer to want to make a change to your OS. You can hire someone who is a programmer to make the change for you. Again, this is not necessarily an economic freedom (as in free beer), but a freedom to do something (as in free speech).

Stallman (often referred to as RMS), founder of the free software Foundation, never asserted that a thing cannot be property of its creator. He merely stated that when the cost of making a duplicate of that thing is essentially nil (as in someone being allowed to redistribute the source for a program) that in the long run it is better for society if the author doesn't charge for the additional copies. The value of the work should be covered by the impetus to create it in the first place. If you need it, write it. If you are paid to write it, write it. Then the code was paid for, and additional copies, taking no resources to make, could cost nothing. The body of software available to everyone could then be multiplied by the number of such releases. There of course are people who think it's outright wrong to patent or copyright anything. There are also people who believe in Scientology.

You make many assumptions and generalizations which are unfair. One of them is that everyone who supports Linux is a zealot. Frankly, I don't care if you use Linux or not. I do support the efforts of those who choose to use it and develop it. It's a choice. After all, "free" is about choice.

Think 'unbound', not 'gratis'. Go ahead, call RMS a hippy. He doesn't care. You can call me what you will, too. You are free to do that.

Re:Microsoft motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're in league with SCO, at least tacitly.

SCO is trying to destroy Linux or at least spread FUD for as long as possible; I'm not convinced they even expect to win, it'd just be a nice happenstance. Microsoft is capitalizing on SCO's position by helping folks migrate FROM UNIX to Windows, and SCO got that licensing deal from Microsoft to help make sure it has enough cash to continue FUD/litigation. Moreover, due to the deal, if SCO won, they would probably just merge/partner with MS (since SCO no longer has any real IT assets worth mentioning) and let MS take over Linux for profit...

But basically the fact is this: we don't especially like MS here, so we're not likely to like them whenever they're doing something like this to their advantage. True, they didn't create the greedly little SCO who is trying to steal code that does belong to it, but they're capitalizing on SCO's existence. This only proves it...

Re:Wow. A Linux-to-Win migration too from Microsof

[gregarican]

Yep. Just like back when Novell had 70% of the business Network Operating System market share Microsoft came out with 'Services for Netware' that ran on their NT Server platform. Over the next couple of years after its release this was definitely a helpful tool in migrating away from Netware. I had to roll a couple of companies over and found tools like this helpful.

How about an abstraction layer?

[Lodragandraoidh]

I have 3 windoze boxes on my network atm. My daughter has one, my wife the other - both their primary work/play stations, and I have a juiced up P4 as my game box (that is all it does - the only thing running on it is 'systray', and whatever game I happen to be playing, most likely WWIIonline [wwiionline.com])

I have 3 other machines that are all Linux machines (Redhat - soon to be Debian file server, Debian workstation, and a Slackware network analysis machine).

I've played with Cygwin, Hummingbird etc. over the years - and found the emulation of the unix environment Kludgey, and not transparent enough for my tastes.

Basically I wanted a bash compliant shell that was transparent enough to run the standard set of unix CLI tools (ls, ps, grep, df etc...) - but also allow me to kick off native windows and dos applications without switching modes of operation (i.e. type in the path and have it run the application). I did not need to be able to compile binaries - my main purpose for this tool would be to write utility scripts for system administration on the boxes. I wouldn't need remote access (although I might implement that as a seperate capability with freely available tools if needed - outside the scope of my project).

Then a thought hit me - why not implement this in python? I already have python loaded on most of my windows machines - why not make it universal? Python would serve as the abstraction layer I needed - and provide a built-in scripting capability to boot. All of the unix tools will be implemented in python either as built-ins or as seperate '.py' scripts.

Additional functionality - such as 'crontabs' would need to be implemented, as well (haven't worked out the details of that yet).

Ideally, you would drop python and this package on the windows box -- and presto! Instant CLI... And the nice thing about it is that it would be using native windows APIs - so would be faster than some of the emulators that attempt to be a complete source compliant emulation environment.

I haven't seen any drawbacks, yet. The cron functionality might be a bit of an issue - but it doesn't look insurmountable.

wsfu ?? should be Unix Services for Windows

[sPaKr]

Am I the only one that thinks MS needs to rename this product. Lets think about it Windows Services for Unix, doesnt that sound like it should be samba.. or something that runs on a unix machine that provides windows services? Really the kit should be called Unix Services for Windows, that makes it sounds like what it is nfs and the rest of posix that windows is missing. The only way it makes sense with their wording is Windows: Services for Unix, but that requires punctuation that everyone has seen fit to drop

Look at the details

[MantiX]

One only has to take a step back for a second and realise whats possibly going on here.

Remember when Microsoft renewed its license to SCO for Unix?

I am curious to know if they are now giving it away for free because they don't want to be the company that provides licensing royalties to SCO, or at least keep them to a bare minimum.

Perhaps the side effects of SCO's legal action is free microsoft software. Who knows.....

Re:Microsoft motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as people want Microsoft to Die, dissipate, disolve, terminate, etc.... If they did that, the economy would be in a world of hurt. Not to mention all of the people that would slowly be without jobs. An ideal solution would be for everyone to play nice.

Re:Hmm, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[gosand]

NO! Microsoft has no intensions of living alongside Linux. These types of tools have many uses, but in Micosoft's view are to assist Linux users to migrate Linux operations to Windows. Don't fool yourself.

Not exactly. It is to migrate Unix users to Windows. (i.e. proprietary hardware to x86) It is to prevent them from migrating from Unix to Linux. They have finally resigned themselves to the fact that *nix is valuable: "This is really about the interoperability," said Dennis Oldroyd, the marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Server Group. "Very few of our customers are going to have a pure Unix or pure Windows environment...

Did you ever think 5 years ago that Microsoft would ever admit that their users would have anything but a pure Windows environment? And you missed my veiled reference when I said they will embrace it. They will embrace it - then extend it. That is their M.O.

Re:This will simplify open source releases

[Admiral Lazzurs]

Did you read the story (or get the email) about MS sending that survey to all of the LUG's......they listened!!!

Take care - RL

Re:Microsoft motives?

[malfunct]

That has nothing to do with it, what embrace and extend would mean in this situation is MS implement a unix-like extension as part of SFU thats not available in unix that becomes popular as a replacement to something common in unix. At that point you have to buy windows or not interact with people using that feature.

In my opinion that won't happen, anything that MS builds as an extension of the server will apply to the windows side because thats what MS wants to promote.

Maybe is should have been called "STFU"...

[Black Art]

Microsoft is reminding me of a heroin dealer more and more.

"The first one is free."

I suggest that anyone who is planning on moving apps to Microsoft check on how much all those additional licenses will cost you. Microsoft is the master of the hidden cost. "Client Access Licenses" for every service you want to use eventually adds up to a big chunk of change.

And then there is the shifting nature of development in the Windows world. Every year or two it is a different set of prefered developer technologies that you are expected to use. This year it is .Nyet. I can guarantee that it will not be that 3 years from now. (Or it will not be compatible.) They have to have something to keep you buying the latest version. Developers get led by the nose just like anyone else in the Windows world.

Anyone who ports applications over to Windows either has a fool for a client or is a fool himself.

Re:so lets make this simple

[airjrdn]

I know I'll probably get trolled for this, but...

Sure! Just don't forget to read the gazillion-page EULA very carefully ;-).

Or, if it were Linux related:
Sure! Just don't forget to read the gazillion-page install procedures very carefully ;-).

Linux has a lot to offer, no arguing that. But until it's applications don't require patches from multiple sources, 10 page install instructions, and are easy to undo if something goes wrong (video drivers/settings anyone?) it's gonna remain behind. About once every 4 months or so I retry a couple Linux distros, only to find out that for the average Windows user, there are still a lot of little things that need work. If I choose a wrong setting with regards to video card/monitor settings, I'm looking at a reinstall. Yeah, I'm sure there's a way to fix it without the wizard/gui, but just throw me into 640x480 at 60hz and let me try again. It's "little" things like that holding Linux back IMO.

Re:Regarding your sig

[mobiGeek]

note: anyone who suggests VI is an macho idiot who cannot be trusted, emacs is functional but still fairly shitt. Come out of the the 1980's, guys

Anyone who says that VI and Emacs are shitt should come out of the 1980's.

Vim [vim.org] is incredible and GNU/Emacs with the JDEE [sunsite.dk] is a fantastic Java development environment.

But seriously...my sig does not say "their IDEs suck...", it says "beware their IDEs"...they rope you in and tie you down:

Ever tried developing a decent plugin for their IDEs (think SCC: the version control API)?

Ever worked with someone who only knows MS IDEs and try to work on something "different"?

Ever tried to develop an "open standards" application with their IDE?

More than 15 years of development on their "IDEs" and they still don't have a decent REGEXP search-and-replace...don't have "keyboard macros"...still don't have very effective mouse-free (i.e. keyboard exclusive) navigation.

So yes, they have done some very nice things in their IDEs. But you compare VI and Emacs , which are extremely powerful editors that now have compiler/debugger (IDE) capabilities to MS IDEs which are very powerful development environments with a low-end editor. (Yes, VI and Emacs now have Intellisense too).

Re:so lets make this simple

[_Sharp'r_]

No, just read the attached disclaimer. They would have shipped you a CD for shipping costs, but note the date:

"* Terms and Conditions
Offer good in United States until December 31, 2003 or while supplies last. This offer is extended exclusively to IT Professionals who successfully and accurately complete the online registration process on this site. This offer is only available via http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/unixproresour ces/freesfu30.asp, and any attempt to enter this promotion via any other website will be void. This offer is limited to one per person. Shipping & handling are not included. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. The approximate retail value of Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 is US$99. Void where prohibited."

Re:It's doable, but not exactly simple

[drinkypoo]

You don't need SFU to get the functionality of the pwd command..

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\drink>cd
C:\Documents and Settings\drink

C:\Documents and Settings\drink>

And you can get vi from vim. It has a gui, AND will work in the console.

With that said, I use cygwin, with XWin.exe and xwinclip.exe, and I run xterms instead of console windows most times. My ssh client of choice is xterm -e ssh host. Mostly, I like to use bash. I love doing shit the Unix way. I don't know how Unix-addicted you are now, though. I just felt like chipping in my two cents.