Windows Services For Unix Now Free Of Charge 687
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."
so lets make this simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Samba won't be popular until... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Samba won't be popular until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously I'd just set up a linux box - but if you made a freeware program which you could download which would allow you to share a folder with an indefinite number of users, you'd get a lot of downloads.
Re:Samba won't be popular until... (Score:3, Funny)
. . . come to think of it, Notepad SHOULD be replaced
It already has been. It's called regedit. You can find it in the root of your Windows directory.
Notepad replacements (Score:3, Informative)
some people would be clamoring for an OSS alternative to Notepad
Both Vim and GNU Emacs have been ported to Microsoft Windows.
Including giving credit to OpenBSD. (Score:5, Informative)
As you can see. [deadly.org]
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Informative)
The NFS client as of 3.0 is an improvement over the prior version in that it transparently conveys perms and ownership (according to whatever mapping has been established). It has support for a
In general, however, I think that NFS client access by way of the Win32 subsystem (i.e., not in the Interix POSIX subsystem) is pretty fast, though you might lose some of the perms transparency and there is no
It will be interesting to see if the performance within the POSIX has improved with the new version (3.5).
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Informative)
I really can't remember any glitches using it for 2+ years against Solaris 2.6 boxes.
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Funny)
Almost anything [faqs.org] is more reliable than Hummingbird's NFS.
Viewing the file in hex and yelling it out across the room to somebody else who types it back in is more reliable than Hummingbird's NFS.
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:4, Funny)
Great! We've been looking for a replacement, does the speed compare favourably too?
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
So long as you are talking about Windows Server then yes.
Banner ad (Score:5, Interesting)
It's doable, but not exactly simple (Score:4, Interesting)
I use the NFS feature to mount my W2K box to NFS mounts. That part is simple.
I also mount from Linux to NT. If you give the NT share anonymous, read-only access, then it's simple. If you want more refined security, then it gets more complicated.
You need to do mapping between NT usernames and UNIX user names via a User Name Mapping proxy. I'm sure it works well, but it's kind of hard to understand how to use, and after 30 minutes, I gave up and made the shares from NT anonymous read-only access.
I'm sure if I spent maybe 2 hours on this I could get everything to work, but since this is my home network and I don't have a whole lot of user accounts, I figured I didn't need it.
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Network Attached Storage [webopedia.com] to be precise.
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
OT: Re:so lets make this simple (Score:3, Informative)
And not only that, but "IBM" was never an acronymn [reference.com], but an initialism [reference.com].
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so lets make this simple (Score:5, Informative)
Look again. [microsoft.com]
Operating System:
Microsoft Windows NT(R) Workstation 4.0, Windows NT Server 4.0 with Service Pack 6a or later, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Professional, or Windows Server 2003
Microsoft motives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft motives? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
I want them to be upfront (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why this seemly good gesture is being scrutinized.
Re:Microsoft motives? (Score:5, Funny)
What do you want them to do?
Die, dissipate, dissolve, terminate, and ceace function.
Re:Microsoft motives? (Score:5, Funny)
I've got a suggestion, but this is a family forum.
Chris Mattern
Re:Microsoft motives? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft motives? (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
My biggest complaint about Microsoft products has always been the inherent insecurity of blindly executing code (whether it be macros in a spreadsheet, or an actual executable in an email message). But this product addresses a lot of my 2nd biggest complaint about them: lack of scriptability (i.e., hands-off operation).
The sad thing is, most Windows users have absolutely no concept of how useful this is -- until they are forced to use a Unix-like system. Then, when they see how powerful it can be, and go back to their Windows systems, they claim "Oh, Windows doesn't need that: all the apps just do the right thing when I drag&drop."
So sad....
bass ackwards (Score:5, Funny)
how it compares (Score:5, Informative)
They include gcc, but most of the other utilities are from OpenBSD or other non-GPL sources (there are about 40 different licenses included). ActiveState perl is also included, though you can get that free anyhow.
This could backfire on MS (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This could backfire on MS (Score:5, Insightful)
The only bitch I will have is if this is like other Microsoft attempts at "interoperability" where they break shit. Think kerberos, java, etc.
Re:This could backfire on MS (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Samba is there but always playing catch up (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Samba is there but always playing catch up (Score:4, Funny)
No multithreading (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No multithreading (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No multithreading (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No multithreading (Score:5, Informative)
It contains
This is actually very good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially interesting is the addition of the pthread library to the Posix API package.
Re:Hmm, let's not get ahead of ourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Good business decision (Score:5, Funny)
So now the answer is "free". I'm not saying I like Windows servers over Unix-style boxen - but this was a good business choice for MS.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
"Salesman" and "IT Guy" in same conversation? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Salesman" and "IT Guy" in same conversation? (Score:4, Funny)
Not all so hot (Score:5, Informative)
The lesson stays, however. If you expect to basically start with all the power of your Linux box, you'll be sorely dissappointed, just as someone expected the ease of use of Windows coming to Linux will be sorely dissappointed.
Is the source around? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not gonna use it unless I get the source. Period.
Re: got your source right here (Score:5, Informative)
So like 95% of it is just OpenBSD, mostly pulled from theh 3.0 release tree.
Based upon OpenBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Based upon OpenBSD (Score:3, Interesting)
And GNU. From their licensing page [microsoft.com]:
Re:Based upon OpenBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Great Acronym! SFU! (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone who disagrees with microsoft can just SFU! I mean, install SFU from microsoft.com.
(Just in case somebody missed it, SFU = Shut the F**k Up.)
Re:Great Acronym! SFU! (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, it's still better than the Critical Update Notification Tool.
Good Old Econ 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
No big deal, really. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the message from Microsoft with all of this seems to be that Unix stuff is worthless and just a hassle to tie together with their products. Reality: Microsoft products are a huge liability. Ask anyone who has had their files randomly mailed due one of the thousands of email viruses. The security breaches that Microsoft products bring to the table far more than offset any of their claimed savings in techie hours. Typical BigCo at this points wants to be safeguarding what productivity they have, not tossing it away by opening up more holes than can be patched twice monthly over broadband. Bleh. Even if they gave away MicrosoftServer 2003, I still wouldn't bite. Put the Exchange stack on Linux, and then we'll talk.
Windows needs more apps (Score:5, Funny)
Good, but not great (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, using the two together [having SFU's directory in the path before cygwin's] gives you the best of both releases.
Re:Good, but not great (Score:4, Informative)
Took some playing around to work out "/cygdrive/c" for c: etc. But working out how to have a bash profile, a home dir, etc, take a lot of time. Great project, but certainly not something you can use to solve an immediate problem.
If Unix services integrates cleaner, I suppose I'll have to sacrifice the tools.
It would be nice, though, and certainly possible, if a product could be built on top of cygwin to provide a more seamless experience.
Re:Good, but not great (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, this was not an issue. I installed the complete system, started X11 and some Xterms, and live happily as if I were on a Linux system. The file structures, home directories, and password files were created properly and automatically by the installation. bash profiles went into
It is true that from windows you have to know to navigate to c:\cygwin\home to find the home directories, and from cygwin you have to know the arcane Windows pathnames like c:\Documents and Settings\
There are also Windowing system wars. I am happy enough using the Windows Window managaer (with the Power Toys setup to give me follow focus). From Cygwin I use some X11 apps (like xv, xterm) and also some Win32 apps (gsview, Word, etc.). I never try to compile Win32 apps from source
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what I'd like Cygwin to do differently. But that's because I'm a *nix user grudgingly forced into the Windows world, not a Windows user. So all the stuff that people whose mother tongue is Windows find familiar, I find strange.
MS finds use for their SCO license... (Score:5, Informative)
Twist to the story (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look a the letter on 6/24 from Novell to SCO (partly quoted below) they disputes SCO legal rights to enter into a new agreement with Microsoft.
As voiced yesterday a lawsuit by Novell against SCO is almost certain. They are currently trying to Audit SCO's records in an effort to bring their ducks in row, and presto. Once the suit over Copyright et al is filed SCO effort to get more money will be impossible. On an aside head over to Groklaw and read about SCO's effort o hire a sales manager for their non-existant IP in Linux.
Quote
It has come to our attention that SCO may have violated these provisions. In particular, SCO reported in a recent securities filing that SCO has established a program to review existing licenses, and enter into new licenses, relating to UNIX and that this effort "resulted in the execution of two license agreements" during the quarter ended April 30, 2003. The securities filing states:
The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
Re:MS finds use for their SCO license... (Score:3, Interesting)
Would be fun to check out the NFS client - it's a much cleaner protocol than SMB.
What is the plotline here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
People like to roast MS for not adhering to standards, among other things. This partly answers that.
Of course, this does not make MS a "Good Corporate Citizen" any more then donating money to a homeless shelter makes a tobbaco company a "Good Corporate Citizen". But it does show that once in a while, even bad people can do good things, even if the motives are questionable.
And I have no doubt that Microsofts motives will be questioned here.
END COMMUNICATION
Microsoft misdirected (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at OS X. Look at the recent, sudden success of OS X - partially due to the massive influx of software from the Unix world. Hell, they're running Konquerer on OS X now.
But this is just another thing Microsoft can control.
They ship this free;
Then development on the alternatives slows or stops. That's Samba. Or OpenOffice for Windows (we'll see an OpenOffice that runs in X off of this SFU kit). etc. etc.
Then, when Microsoft chooses, they simply break this kit, with a
Yeah, MS marketing director is clever indeed... (Score:5, Funny)
Previously, I used to think that at least half of the MS customers or so would have a pure Unix environment. Thanks for enlightening me, Dennis!
Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
One is licensed under GPL, and the other isn't....
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Informative)
Cygwin is built on top of the Win32 APIs on top of the NT kernel core.
SFU is built straight on top of the core kernel; Win32 API variances (which have caused headaches for the Cygwin implementors of years) are no longer factored in.
Moreover, the core state information (such as process listings and various other things) come straight from the core. It is perfectly possible to send a SIGSTOP or a SIGKILL to Word.exe (a Win32 app) from the SFU universe and watch Word stop dead or die, respectively.
As well as NFS mounting and export capabilities, SFU also supports NIS and can do various user mappings between the Windows and Unix worlds.
Beware the default password set for some of these options.
Memo to self: no service that requires a password for security should be enabled by default with a standard initial passphrase.
Re:Freedom? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's some features that would have excited me, but I didn't find in SFU.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure about being able to write the filesystem image to disk, Windows might not allow that.
A smart move (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear quite a bit of complaining on Slashdot about Microsoft and their software/business practices. The complaints may have some merit, but I think a no-cost tool that helps integrate Windows and *nix is great.
Diversity is the only way to survive. If Linux (or any OS) dominates to the extent Microsoft has we all lose. I think Microsoft is starting to see that. They may be simply acting like they want interoperability, but if it makes my job (mixed *nix/windows admin) easier without costing my employer more than I am all for it.
BTW I have a copy of v3.0 that I got for the cost of shipping. Those who must admin Windows systems but enjoy the tools availble on *nix should definately check it out.
the_crowbar
UNIX isn't Microsoft's chief competitor... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Does this come with an X Server? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or does this thing only work on Win2k or XP Server editions?
how does the environment compare to Cygwin? (Score:5, Informative)
2) WSFU is better integrated with win32 architecture (OLE/ODBC/...)
3) WSFU make a lot of things easier than cygwin with windows
BUT, i wouldnt trade cygwin for it, note that i have both installed here. I just isolated what i needed from WSFU and was better than cygwin and added them last in my path. I dont have any preferences, but cygwin is waaay more complete, and you have the +/- the same versions of the application that runs on linux. Same config files work fine, same behaviours (which isnt the case with WSFU), etc.
For me, WSFU is just a little + to cygwin.
This cuts both ways. (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, putting Unix API's on Windows provides one more way to write cross-platform applications. Remember, the Unix API's are open standards, so if you write your software to run on them, you've got something that now runs on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. I personally have used Cygwin (SFU would work too) to avoid writing Windows native software. Just load Cygwin, bring over the standard build, tune, and ship.
Microsoft SFU also provides NFS and NIS implementations on Windows, which I have found useful for introducing Linux and Unix into previously Windows-only environments.
A Possible Motive (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
SFU sucks (Score:4, Informative)
I've got an MSDN subscription at my company, so I was installing and using SFU for awhile. Other posters have noticed that SFU's version of grep is slow, though, so I did a bit of research and I've taken to installing the Win32 ports of the GNU utilities also. There's a SourceForge project called UnixUtils [sourceforge.net] that ships a bunch of them in either a zip file (unzip to %systemroot%\system32\) or as a binary installer. They work natively within cmd.exe, so there's no need to use a separate shell as SFU does.
It is missing a few things, but between grabbing SFU for its commands like ls and cp, and the unixutils package, you get the best of both worlds.
The BIG news here... (Score:3, Informative)
It's marketed as a means of migrating NIS users to AD, but it works even better for LDAP, with suitable libnss_ldap.conf and pam_ldap.conf files. The only previous solution was AD4UNIX which no longer seems to be maintained, and is flaky on later service packs. For us, having this for free is good news.
Jon
Wow. A Linux-to-Win migration too from Microsoft! (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Conversation (Score:5, Funny)
BillG: Great! It looks like we have another winner on our hands. People sure do want that Unix stuff. Oh, wait...
SFU PM: erm...
BillG: You're fired.
I've used both (Score:5, Informative)
Not for XP home or 9x (Score:3, Interesting)
However, they're also making it incompatible with 9x and XP Home meaning that all of the geek hobbyists on here who have a mix of *nix and windows machines and wanted to use it from home might need to upgrade their windows os to use them.
Microsoft's Site on 3.5 beta [microsoft.com]
How about an abstraction layer? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
SFU is the way to write windows code (Score:5, Interesting)
Add outwit to the mix (Score:4, Informative)
As an example, you can change all registry entries pointing to a user's home directory by running
A Usenix technical conference paper [spinellis.gr] describes the tools and a number of applications.#include "/dev/tty"
Maybe is should have been called "STFU"... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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
Anyone who ports applications over to Windows either has a fool for a client or is a fool himself.
SMB is incredibly slow... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I have had unix tools for windows for a long ti (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, yes. The Welsh-centric fork of Cygwin.
vi? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:vi? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:NFS client for win! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:MS' Hopes (Score:3, Funny)
You're kidding, right? These have all been ported to win32.
By the way, does anyone else have the feeling that SFU would more appropriately be called SFW? (which could be expanded to Services For Windows, Software Finally Working,
Re:GET IT HERE!!!! (Score:3, Informative)