Unix To Beef Up Longhorn 723
An anonymous reader writes "VNUnet has a story about Longhorn having the ability to run unix or linux code via SFU." Microsoft's site has a lot more information about SFU itself. Regardless of ideological bent, it's an interesting piece o' technology.
Bender's Take (Score:5, Funny)
This Is Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This Is Good (Score:4, Funny)
STFU (Score:5, Funny)
Re:S(T)FU (Score:5, Funny)
"SFU, noob!"
No, SnaFU. (Score:4, Funny)
Longhorn and Unix. (Score:4, Insightful)
Novell is going to Linux.
Windows...? It's the next generation. They just won't admit it.
Re:Longhorn and Unix. (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows Services for UNIX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Longhorn and Unix. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's true, they market the thing for migrating from UNIX to Windows but I've only ever used it to migrate from Windows to UNIX.
In other acronyms.... (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't they just name it Functional Unix Distribution and get the whole acronym thing out in the open.
Re:Longhorn and Unix. (Score:5, Funny)
Novell is going to Linux.
Windows...?
The next generation of Windows will be based on UnixWare.
Now I can write UNIX code... (Score:4, Funny)
Really? From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really? That's fantastic, especially since it's something - by the article's own timeline - that won't be here for another four years.
Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems.
Someone must have a pretty fancy crystal ball to tell us what is and isn't going to "sidelined" four years in the future.
By including SFU in Windows, Microsoft could rapidly become the biggest supplier of Unix software if Longhorn proves a success, undermining traditional Unix vendors such as Sun, HP and IBM, as well as Linux vendors' enterprise offerings.
Um, someone is forgetting about the single largest shipper of UNIX* systems in the world: Apple, which eclipses all other vendors.
In fact, Microsoft's move is aimed at two things primarily: Linux and Mac OS X, both in the server environment and on the desktop. Both OSes are making serious and impressive inroads in areas where they've never had large showings: Linux on the desktop, and Mac OS X in the datacenter. Microsoft, of course, sees this - given Gates' recent diatribes about the "dangers" of anything open source, or anything non-Microsoft - and we can leave it up to brilliant journalists to spread FUD to help hawk a product that won't ship for almost half-a-decade.
Microsoft may also release a 64bit version of SFU this year.
Oh really? That's wonderful news, considering we've already got that support with various commercial and non-commercial *NIXes and Linux for quite a while. Again, Microsoft, with the aid of journalists, pulling the normal "hey, you might be able to do X now, but in a few years, you'll be able to do it with Windows Amazing Edition even better! So don't invest in anything else, just stay with the perennial safe refuge of Microsoft!"
* Yes, yes, "UNIX-like".
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, SFU enables you to do things like run an NFS server on Windows. Basically it is meant to enable PHBs to replace Unix servers with cheap Dell boxes running Windows admined by MCSEs. It has nothing to do with desktop linux or OS X.
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure why this is preferable to cheap Dell boxes running Linux adminned by MCSEs, If they can't admin a unix service running on linux, they can't admin a unix service running on Windows either.
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:4, Funny)
Why MS is doing this and its effects (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding. I know what Microsoft is thinking on this one, and I think that four years is probably too late. It simply comes down to offering a low cost migration path from UNIX. Note that this only affects the server though.
I don't think that it will sideline different Linux vendors, though it most certainly will continue to sideline Sun, if they are still around. Of course Sun is effectively sidelined at the moment, so....
Microsoft's hope here is that they can be the vendor that runs successful UNIX server software and also supports Windows desktops exclusively. It is also aimed at preventing customers from switching to Linux just because they want to run an Apache server.
Of course in 4 years, the computing landscape could be very different than it is now. I suspect that we will be in the middle of a huge conflict the likes of which the industry has never seen. I don't think that most analysts or most managers at MS count on it being as intense as it will.
When I left MS, the prevailing view was that OSS was a pipe dream which could not work in the real world (completely ignoring the success of Apache, BIND, Sendmail, GCC, etc). I don't think that they are conscious of how their pricing model effectively eliminates them from certain markets, such as the ISP market either.
Please take a break from hating microsoft ... (Score:5, Insightful)
SFU is cool technology - you get real NFS client and server, a real UNIX cmdline environment (much better than cygwin, IMO), full gcc, libraries, tcsh, even x11 libs (but no local xserver). I find that having a tcsh SFU window hanging around on my desktop significantly helps my development process (foreach/grep/find/sed does wonders for search-n-replace on a large code base)
I'm not sure really what the point of your post was, but it mostly revolves around bitching at MS and journalists about a announcing a product plan. You seem to focus on how longhorn wont be here for a while. The specific technology in question, SFU, is here today, and you can use it now if you want to.
Not that that should stop you from randomly complaining about MS though. This is slashdot afer all
Actually, you're completely wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"With the release of Mac OS X, Apple became the largest vendor of Unix in the world" [computerworld.com]
"There are over 5 million Mac OS X users, including scientists, animators, developers, and system administrators, making Apple the largest vendor of UNIX-based systems." [apple.com]
A lot more... [google.com]
This has been common knowledge for a couple of years now.
Re:Actually, you're completely wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually, you're completely wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
A more valid comparison (of desktop usage at least) would be OS citations from web browsers. I don't know if Netcraft or someone would have that info, though...
Re:Actually, you're completely wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The difference (Score:3, Informative)
Now how many people who bought Apple computers probably use OS X?
Common sense tells you the number of people who keep using OS X vs. the number of people who use a freebee included with an MB are probably drastically different.
No, actually, I'm not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:5, Informative)
SFU only provides partial X support. Something about licensing issues and X servers. They also don't include an SSH server becuase of fears of a conflict with SSH, Inc. And despite the fact that WIndows uses Kerberos for integration, their telnet server and client (from SFU or just the OS) don't try to use it for encryption.
Last I heard, there was talk about the latter, but who knows if it will come to anything.
Re:Really? From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead, try anecdotes that don't prove anything other than how dorky your friends are.. That's the slashdot way.
uh.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uh.. (Score:5, Funny)
Not for the home but for the servers of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not for the home but for the servers of the wor (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because I would like to add the overhead of running MS Windows Server to my LAMP solution. It runs too fast now; I need to slow it down.
This could backfire badly as well. What is the incentive for companies to port to MS Windows with this? There isn't one. Instead, it makes sense for a company which expects a 50/50 MS Windows Server/*nix market to develop for *nix so that their code runs on both platforms. In other words, it makes it easier to be a *nix developer.
Will open source projects like Apache, MySQL, and PHP drop their MS Windows ports if this occurs? At the very least, I would expect interest to diminish.
My Win desktop already runs *nix code... (Score:5, Informative)
-m
Re:My Win desktop already runs *nix code... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your statement is a half-truth. You are actually running *Windows* code. From the point of view of binary distribution, yes I totally agree that Cygwin is a very useful set of tools.
Source code, however, is another matter entirely. You can't just take some random package off the net, do a and expect it to work. Yes, on some occasions it does, but often not.
Many times developers use in their build system, and if they don't expect 'CYGWIN_NT-5.0', the build breaks. Unless you have a good idea how autconf/make works, you could be up the creek.
Re:My Win desktop already runs *nix code... (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
SFU? (Score:5, Funny)
doesn't that mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways there is no way to know without access to the source code.
Re:doesn't that mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't matter, that's what open source is all about. Microsoft does distribute the GPL'd source code for the current Services for Unix, I would imagine that any code they grab to allow Linux compatibility would just be included on their ftp.
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu35/
Anyways there is no way to know without access to the source code.
Once again, who cares? As long as M$ meets the requirements of the Open Source Code that they use, there shouldn't be a problem. . .
Re:doesn't that mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick, someone all Apple... (Score:5, Funny)
cue sound of one hand slapping forehead...
Either MS or the article writer are clueless... (Score:4, Insightful)
* Political reasons: MS cannot rail against the GNU license if they bundle GNU software with its OS. It would be too damaging to the argument that GNU is "dangerous and infectious" to commercial software projects if they successfully demonstrated GNU legally co-mingling with closed software. Bundling SFU and giving it a high profile at this point--when it is still laden with GNU software and MS's own platform is a creaking, worm-infested hulk with a screen-door security policy--would be tantamount to admitting defeat.
* Marketing reasons: They would have to fight the perception that their own software is so inferior to alternatives that they themselves will not use it. An important sales and marketing rule is to "eat your own dogfood"--doing otherwise makes the job tough for the sales force. If using the alternative cannot be avoided then MS wants to add as LITTLE value as possible by making it a separate but free package with only a little, narrowly targeted marketing. This strategy has given SFU the image of an obscure, "skunkworks" project--just as MS intends.
* Legal reasons: The problem isn't with distribution itself. The likely problem is that to bundle/integrate SFU with the OS the way MS WANTS to "embrace" it would require "extending" some of that GNU software. Microsoft is never content with merely putting the software on the CD--it wants to fuse it with the OS a la IE. THAT is where the GPL would get in the way, because MS depends heavily on keeping its extensions to open standards and systems proprietary--something the GPL forbids.
Thus we have to wait until Longhorn for "integrated SFU". MS needs the time to re-engineer the GPL components in such a way that it is "SCO approved" and extendable without concern for openness. Furthermore, Longhorn is supposed to be a quantum leap from the status quo--a major re-work. It represents a shift akin to moving from DOS to Win 3.x or Win 3.x to Win95. In this scenario, integrated SFU becomes just one of a large number of significant advancements, rather than sticking out like a sore thumb by being introduced at a time when MS is fighting with current Win32 shortcomings.
The result us that SFU can be credibly marketed as intended--a way to introduce Windows into a "legacy" UNIX environment with the prospect of eventual takeover.
Re:Quick, someone all Apple... (Score:5, Interesting)
What you can't do is use open source code in a product that will be shipped binary only.
So far so good... excepting spelling, of course
If the commertal parts of SFU contain open source code then Microsoft can't ship.
I think you're confused. SFU, until the most recent version, was a commercial product that MS sold for many years, with GPL code included. They have always given access to the GPL code, and included it in a commercial product. Remember, binary-only and commercial are not the same thing.
However this begs the question why did Microsoft use GCC and not Microsoft C++?
Hmmm?
Because Microsoft C++ doesn't have any need for the GCC extensions and other factors that would complicate MS C++ while only adding minor benefits. Additionally, SFU was not originally developed by Microsoft. Using GCC makes porting Unix applications easier, since most of the applications being ported were originally developed under GCC. The idea is that you could do very little work to get an application running under Interix (now SFU), and then eventually spend the extra time writing the application as a native Windows app. The article also points out that they may be working on a way to allow Windows and Unix code to work together (which they can't do currently outside of some external communication system), which would most likely be done under MS C++, especially given the increased standards-compliance of MS C++ over the last couple of releases (though, again, they may have to add some GNU extensions).
Maybe it has something to do with the commertal product being absolut garbage.
That's just the vodka you've been drinking.
Aha! (Score:4, Funny)
So, this is new how? (Score:5, Informative)
more monopoly abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
What you don't mention is that Microsoft caused this. Unlike with NT 4, Microsoft refused to grant a reasonable license to the Win2k source. The little company was thus doomed, making them cheap for the big predatory company to aquire.
Re:So, this is new how? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just a couple of corrections.
The UNIX support in WindowsNT is not a 'layer' but a subsystem, i.e. just like Win32 is a subsystem. (This is part of the what makes the NT architecture unique)
Also NT had a POSIX subsystem, and even third party UNIX subsystem support since 3.1 when it was released in 1993, not NT 4.0.
With the subsystem technology of the NT architecture, Microsoft could actually implement a binary level subsystem that is fully Linux compaitble, and sit on top of the NT kernel, with full intertaction with the other subsystems that sit on NT. (i.e. Win32, etc) Just in case Linux or other *nix overtakes the desktop, Microsoft could put out a NT kernel based version that could in theory be even more solid than a generic Linux implementation itself.
Obviously ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obviously ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read between the lines this is actually the most insightful point in the comments so far.
If one stops to consider Microsoft's business model it becomes apparent that SFU is a way for Microsoft to attempt to gain IP rights to POSIX compliance. In the beginning there will be incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Microsoft will collaborate with organizations to iron out the incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Through merit of collaboration Microsoft will attempt to patent and copyright their contributions and, with every legal filing, will make a grab for any related material that is possible. The Linux industry, not wanting to be perceived as deliberately trying to undermine Windows, will have to collaborate with the Windows movement. Since Microsoft can afford to patent the contributions and refinements they will eventually nibble away at the GPL.
Essentially Microsoft is hoping to do to Linux what Linux did to UNIX. Microsoft is hoping to spend enough time to rewrite the code, subroutine by subroutine, in the name of compatibility, so that they can divest Linux from GPL. When they have properly divested the system from GPL over the course of five to ten years then they will once again assume market share _AND_ be able to legally make SCO-like IP claims on *NIX systems.
SCO code... (Score:5, Informative)
"Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO."
Re:SCO code... (Score:5, Insightful)
From another angle - expect this to be fertile ground for FUD. I've always found it amusing how much Microsoft likes to claim the GPL is dangerous while providing a product (SFU) full of GPL'd utilities. It seems they're taking steps to correct this oversight. And I expect MS' marketing department already have statements prepared on how incompatible GPL code was with a commercial product and what a chore (and expense) it was ripping all that code out.
Re:SCO code... (Score:4, Informative)
It's hard to tell what's going under the hood with the latest version of SFU without actually downloading it. However, at one time in the past, Microsoft was very forthcoming with what SFU included. But you can still find traces if you look.
Microsoft's FTP server offers a copy of the GPL [microsoft.com] which begins:
Also, if you look at an older version [archive.org] of the SFU site, you'll note a sidebar that reads:
Note that Microsoft honors the GPL and offers source code via download and media (at the modest rate of $20). Which is a Good Thing.
Now - as I noted, I'm not sure whether GPL utilities play such a role in the latest version of SFU. But at one time they did.
Re:SCO code... (Score:4, Funny)
1. Microsoft licenses Unix from SCO
2. SCO revokes every other UNIX companies license
3. MS adds a Unix emulation layer
4. The whole world now has to license Windows to use their Unix systems
5. Profit
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
All the stability of Windows.
Didn't somebody at Microsoft think to reverse things? They'd be furthur ahead to try to fix what they have before adding what everybody else has.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
All the stability of Windows
Now that's reverse engineering!
Windows SFU vs Cygwin? (Score:5, Interesting)
For a while now I have used some OSS-community applications on my Windows 2000 Office desktop by running binaries compiled under the Cygwin Linux environment on Windows.
the concept of having a Linux application which could be compiled under Windows from the same codebase (subject to dependencies and X-server requirements being met) may be very appealing to the Opensource groups who have been issuing software tor Mac OSX by this method for some time.
I also wonder if this is intended to give Windows more access to certain Scientific/Media computing markets which are dominated by *nix systems (industrial renderfarms, for instance). Either way, I can only see this as a good thing.
Re:Windows SFU vs Cygwin? (Score:4, Informative)
The only new thing here is the thought of shipping SFU with Windows (and presumably a lot of new glue to make it possible for a non geek to configure). SFU and Cygwin are both old but good technologies.
Technically, SFU != Cygwin. They achieve the same aim, that of exposing a Unix API so that Unix programs can be compiled to run under Windows, but are apples and oranges under the hood. SFU does it by adding an API on top of the kernel and beside the Win32 API using a little known but cool capability of windows. Cygwin does it by adding an API on top of the Win32 API. Theoretically, SFU has less in its way to hinder performance than Cygwin. I've not tested whether the potential was realized.
Already getting slow, here's the (short) article (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's Services for Unix facility is poised to take a more prominent role in the next edition of Windows
Roger Howorth, IT Week 12 Jul 2004
Microsoft is set to include its Services for Unix (SFU) add-on for Windows as an integral part of the next major release of the Windows server operating system, codenamed Longhorn and expected in 2008. Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems.
A growing number of firms are using SFU, currently a free add-on for Windows 2000, 2003 and XP Professional, because it enables a single system to run Windows, Linux and Unix software.
Systems running SFU provide an excellent environment for integrating applications - for example, to add Active Directory support to a Unix application.
Jason Zions, a solutions architect at Microsoft, said there are development versions of SFU that enable a single process to run code both from Windows and Unix libraries. Currently this feature, which would dramatically ease integration tasks, is not available in SFU. Zions said, "We've been working on research versions that would solve that particular problem. It wouldn't surprise me to see that capability appear in a future release of Windows."
Dan Kusnetzky of analyst firm IDC said SFU was one of Microsoft's hidden jewels. "It's a very powerful capability that Microsoft very seldom speaks about," he said. "Rather than hide this product behind Windows they should lead with it. Many firms might be much more interested in Windows if it worked in the way they are used to doing things."
By including SFU in Windows, Microsoft could rapidly become the biggest supplier of Unix software if Longhorn proves a success, undermining traditional Unix vendors such as Sun, HP and IBM, as well as Linux vendors' enterprise offerings.
Microsoft has already confirmed that Longhorn will include a technology called "server roles" to make it easier for IT staff to build Windows servers suited to a particular task, such as file serving. Experts said SFU could surface as a new server role in Longhorn.
SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
Microsoft may also release a 64bit version of SFU this year. Zions suggested that Microsoft would soon support 64bit x86 processors such as the AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon EM64T chips, saying, "SFU 3.5 today does not run on Windows 64bit platforms, but when I get home I am putting in an order for a 64bit AMD laptop because I have to demo this stuff."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
No, not so much actually (Score:4, Informative)
Back in the day I believe it was Citrix that did this, and their product added a hell of a POSIX layer to NT4. They ran out of money and Microsoft picked them up, making SFU. Right now SFU is available from MS for no charge, and actually adds quite a good POSIX layer to Windows.
The difference would be right now it's pretty server-ish. It wants to setup a NFS server and such. It's also not included.
Sound like the idea here is to make Windows a multi-API system with Longhorn. Rather than just shipping with Win32, as XP does, it'll ship with
No idea if this is something that'l really work or just pie in the sky, but it's not the same thing as Cygwin, and isn't based on it.
Distributing GCC (Score:5, Funny)
> currently contains open-source software, such as
> the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed
> with commercial software.
Where's that clue-stick of mine? I feel the need to beat someone over the head with it.
And in related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Distributing OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Distributing OSS (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Ask any 10 geeks about the GNU license -- even those that have read it -- and you'll get at least 3 different answers as to what that license binds you to do (or not do) in some issues. Something this murky would just confuse developers further. (Microsoft's main focus for many products is developers not users.)
2. Where the SFU stuff ends (regardless of which parts are GNU-covered) and the OS begins can confuse people and cause litigation. i.e. SFU API 1 calls API 2 calls API 3 (GNU layer!) calls API 4 calls some OS thing. Even if these "APIs" are separate "programs". Why even introduce the confusion? Show a working OS, show an Add-On package which adds more functionality, and they're demonstrably different. This is the reverse of the IE-bonded-to-Windows contraversy that they're still mired in.
3. The GNU licenses are still mostly untested in court in front of a judge. Would you place the family jewels next to a creepy-crawly misunderstood Consumer of Intellectual Property whose limits aren't firmly established?
4. Microsoft is just crawling out of the Java/Sun nightmare. To a casual observer, this smells the same. Distribution of a toolkit to allow non-MS stuff to run under MS operating systems... Ouch!
5. Don't get developers used to having the SFU handy for all of their needs as part of the OS, then they'll rely on it. Better to keep it separate in case it fails, needs to be spun off, or becomes a support and legal nightmare. Everyone developing gets used to the idea that this is just an add-on.
Article summary. (Score:5, Funny)
Some people think SFU is really cool.
Microsoft might upgrade SFU to 64bit sometime in the future.
SFU lets you run *nix apps on Windows.
There, now you don't have to wait for that page to load.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Old News (Score:4, Informative)
I doubt Longhorn will add anything significantly new to this.
For what it's worth, it's a pretty good POSIX layer with a rather good ksh implementation.
It also appears to be more stable than Cygwin, and more palatable to corporate IT departments who have a tendencey to shy away from "those crazy open source guys".
Bringing Interix into the Win32 trainwreck? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jason Zions, a solutions architect at Microsoft, said there are development versions of SFU that enable a single process to run code both from Windows and Unix libraries. Currently this feature, which would dramatically ease integration tasks, is not available in SFU.
This would almost certainly require much more closer integration of the Interix and Win32 subsystems. Oh my ears and whiskers, this can't be good.
SFU is a kludge, more so than cygwin (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it does not bundle many common and nessisary things like gcc, most gnu tools, cvs, ssh, or bash. You can get these from a seperate site (interopsys), but most of the standard things still require patches before they can be successfully compiled and used on sfu. In this sense, even at 3.5, sfu offers a lower level of compatibility with existing unix sources than cygwin does. As such, there is still no version of libtool that will build shared libraries on sfu, although this can now be done successfully with cygwin.
In addition to being incomplete, sfu offers no x server. cygwin includes xfree86 now. To get X under sfu, the only options are commercial, and expensive.
Finally, sfu integrates poorly in many ways with the win32 environment and with unix. For example, sfu insists internally my home directory is
Next, there is still some basically broken stuff related to file permissions between sfu and mswin. For example, I downloaded a tarball into the sfu file system from both exporer and firefox, but the permissions sfu saw for the saved files were ---, no r/w anything for anyone! At least cygwin and mswin do interoprate on files at this level!
Both cygwin and sfu mangle file names and file system layouts in complex ways. However, cygwin does a better job of this. I can use c:/ in cygwin, for example, but my only choice in sfu is
Finally, I had sfu 3.5 lock up on me, and it took down the entire machine. I have had older versions of cygwin lock up on me a few times, but they never killed the machine.
All in all, I have found even the latest and greatest SFU a very ugly and just barely usable kludge. Cygwin, while certainly not perfect, is far more usable and useful even before considering that cygwin is also far more complete in what it does offer out of the box. Cygwin is a very underrated tool in this respect.
There's somebody who doesn't understand the GPL! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sheesh...
Microsoft is imitating Apple, again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this:
Conclusion? Microsoft is aping Apple. Again. And, again, they will probably make a very inferior imitation of the original thing.
And, again, they will probably market it to death and succeed, making piles and piles of cash in the meantime. Nothing new under the sun. *sigh*
Embrace Extend Extinguish (Score:3, Insightful)
HA! It's finally happened. MS have come up with a solution to the Linux Question. Simply supply your own version of Unix called Longhorn and simply make it incompatable with any other Unix distrobution, especially linux. Question is will it work?
Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
You may rest assured that this is the stage where the 'new technologies' i.e lock-ins, will be introduced into the unix source code. They will be lovely features of course, ADT, WinFS etc, etc. But all will be tied inexorably to windows and sealed with the DMCA.
This may be the lynchpin of the whole Longhorn stratgey? Or I could just be on drugs.
all the goodness of UNIX... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Hash Pipe (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think Bill is trying to pull a Steve on us here by talking far in the future, cementing our notions of Microsoft as a gargantuan buffoon, while secretly planning to abruptly and with much fanfare unveil Longhorn on store shelves by, say, Christmas?
-b
Windows is becoming a meta-platform... (Score:4, Interesting)
an application...
running on user mode linux...
running on a host linux...
running on VMWare...
running on Windows.
So, what's the "platform"? (Extra Credit: If the application is a web-services solution, what's the "platform" then?)
You can't remove all the OS code in Interix! (Score:5, Informative)
That would be entertaining, considering that just about every userland component of Interix has OpenBSD copyright notices in it. Take out all the Open Source from Interix and you'd have little more than the "kernel" left.
If they're really talking about doing that, and perhaps replacing it with the code from Unixware... I don't think commercial UNIX or Linux have anything to fear from the result. I've used Unixware, and it was less than impressive.
Jason Zions' Blog (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally. (Score:3, Funny)
This cuts both ways (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, it cuts both ways, folks.
If an ISV can write POSIX code that builds on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS, where's the motivation to write Win32 (or even WinFX) native code?
Thank you Microsoft, for providing standard API's for a change. Between that and Mono, things are looking good for cross-platform software. Good to see Microsoft doing the right thing. (Now, we know they'll deliberately make this difficult, because it's just not Bill's nature to play nicely, but we'll work around that.)
I'd say this is a good thing for Linux. (Score:5, Interesting)
And while they program away until 2008, (Score:3, Insightful)
This will become the basis for... (Score:5, Funny)
STFU? (Score:3, Funny)
Now THAT would be interesting. Like your own Denis Leary in your computer.
methinks (Score:4, Funny)
What makes me laugh, though, is I can't help but think they're trying to build a *nix emulation layer for win32/winFX vis-a-vis Wine.
Running Linux apps on Windows? (Score:4, Funny)
(Go ahead and mark me as a troll, but I was actually trying to be funny...)
Do people really use SFU?? First of all, the name is deceptive. When I hear "Windows Services for Unix" I think "SaMBa." It's a Windows service and it's for Unix. This stuff runs under Windows! Shouldn't it be Unix services for Windows?
Anyway, I'd be really interested to hear cases where people actually use this thing. To me it's easier and better to just load up another box with Linux to run Linux apps.
Re:Running Linux apps on Windows? (Score:4, Interesting)
LOL that's a great point, but seriously... does microsoft actually suppose that people are moving to linux because of all those great apps? (snigger) such naivete is amusing... there are already all sorts of apps for windows, and I don't know of anybody, myself included, who has ever moved from windows to linux for the apps - no, the killer app of linux is linux itself, on the bare metal!
I talked with microsoft pr drones at linuxworld, where they were showing their unix emulator, watched their demo and asked their guys some easy questions:
No, it can't run X windows apps, let alone OpenGL apps.
No, it can't run native linux binaries - they have to be specifically compiled for this weird flavor of quasi-unix.
No, even basic unix commands such as "ifconfig" don't work, but the peecee equivalent "ipconfig" was substituted for it. (I forgot to ask them about drive letters, LOL)
Misses the point (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe MS will switch to the Linux or BSD kernel after Longhorn is out. If OS's are a commodity why waste vast amounts of money competing with something that's already better and free. They're already doing that with IE (telling people they should switch to Mozilla).
NT POSIX subsys; "OS/2 runs Windows apps better... (Score:4, Insightful)
Way, way back, when most people that ran MS OSes actually ran the ugly 16-bit shell called Windows For Workgroups 3.11, Windows NT already had smth called "the POSIX subsystem". It was there more or less since day one of Windows NT designs, engineered to work similarly to the "win32" subsystem, and there was even a brief period of time when MS marketed its OS as "the first fully POSIX-compatible OS", due to this POSIX subsystem. Their hope, apparently, was the same as today - that UNIX-oriented programmers from the scientific and industrial backgrounds will switch to NT. However, they failed to support and upgrade the POSIX subsystem, and, given the failed expectations of attracting customers to buying NT for that subsystem (the majority were migrating from win16), they decided to dump it altogether for a while. Back then it served just another feature on the feature list to push Windows NT to as many OEMs on one hand and programmers on the other hand as possible. Those who did come because ofthe POSIX compatibility, were frustrated but already locked in.
"OS/2 runs Windows apps better than Windows" (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry folks, hit submit instead of the preview on one of my revisions. Here's the other part, about OS/2.
Even before the events I have described in the parent post, when MS pulled out abruptly out of the OS/2 deals, the OS/2 developers realized the tremendous potential of the Windows marketing and upcoming installed base, as well as the multitude of applications gearing up for Windows (it was Windows 2 then! I believe Windows 3.0 was the 1st revision MS put out after they dumped the OS/2 partnership).
So the OS/2 team tried their own version of "embrace and extend". They put up a slogan that (sorry for not remembering the exact wording) said that OS/2 runs Windows applications better than Windows (and this was true in a lot of ways, but we won't digress). Their hope was that a lot of developers would thus switch to OS/2, and for those who had some legacy Windows products to use, or Windows-based product lines to continue shipping, the Windows API support from OS/2 would suffice. Eventually, developers would prefer the richer OS/2 API and Windows would become a gone thing.
Reality, as we know, was a bit different. OS/2 lost, and Windows won. The prevalent attitude among the developers and the management back then was "if OS/2 supports alias emulates Windows (architectural issues of the real thing aside), and Windows is just that - native Windows, why don't we develop only for Windows - instead of doing cross-platform design, or supporting two product lines, we'll reduce the costs this way. We'll also reduce the costs by never buying OS/2 at all - whoever wants to run it, can buy it and it will run our apps anyhow."
So with the Longhorn/UNIX compatibility it can swing both ways towards Windows. One way (the way MS prefers it to go) would be mass switching into Windows from Unix. Just like the OS/2 folks dreamt of the future swinging towards them. The other way would be for Windows to be on the receiving end of the killing machine that killed OS/2 back then.
Windows, of course, has *much* better chances now than OS/2 then. Larger codebase written over Windows - centuries and millenia of man-hours. Orders of magnitude more users. Yet this alone won't help IMHO unless Windows rides the open source wave the way Mac OS X does. But in that case, they will have to contribute back to the open source. The ugly future would be MS succeeding into convincing people that open source is bad, by FUD or litigation or whatever else, and/or luring people into seemingly open source development on Longhorn with hidden strings attached.
Time will tell.
Xenix (Score:5, Insightful)
As Henry Spencer put it "Those who do not understand Unix are condemed to reinvent it, poorly".
We may be seeing the wheel coming around full circle..
Sensationalist! (Score:5, Interesting)
nick
wow, that's progress (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with Windows isn't the lack of features, it is that it already has far too many. Adding Linux into the mix makes the problem with Windows worse, not better.
wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when can't open source software be shipped side by side with commercial software?
What Microsoft really means is that they don't want the fact that they use gpl'd software becoming very public.
Re:Really? Does that now mean that.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really? Does that now mean that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, there's nothing technically wrong with the NT kernel that would justify such a huge change. It's much easier to put Unix on Windows than visa-versa.
Re:Really? Does that now mean that.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:heh... (Score:5, Funny)
No. This smells more of "make it easier to migrate if you're using *Nix" than "we'll work faster with their stuff". Comical is the use of the acronymn SFU for the services for Unix.
Re:heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, that ease of migration works both ways. Now that my family has been using Firefox on their Windows computers they're not so intimidated by using one of my Linux computers for web browsing.
The more *nix software you can get running on Windows computers, the more likely those Windows users can make a seemless migration to *nix without any angst or gnashing of teeth.
Now, if you can only keep developers from using Windows "special features" maybe we'll finally get something close to platform independence.
TW
Re:heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy do I disagree. Yes, Linux can be a pain to set up, but unless you're buying a new computer pre-installed and configured Windows can also be a massive pain in the ass to setup. And maintenance for Windows computers, in the form of patch, antivirus and spyware/malware upkeep is more than just a chore.
But the setup part of the your comment isn't what I disagree most with. What I disagree most with is that Windows strength isn't what it can run. Mac people go nuts when you try to put them on a Windows comptuer. Unix folks go nuts when you try to put them on a Windows computer. Windows users go nuts when you try to put them on a Mac or Linux computer. The reason for this is because they don't have the workflow they're used to. The biggest reasons their workflow is different is because they have to use different apps.
People love their apps, even their bad ones, because they've taken the time to learn the idocyncracies of _those_ apps. They still have to learn how the OS works, but if you take away learning new apps the switch is much easier for most people. It's not so much that Windows apps are supperior, it's that Windows apps are what most people know how to use well. If "Windows" apps can also be found on the competitions computers, many more people would feel comfortable about switching.
TW