Microsoft Rep To Keynote Unix Conference 233
An anonymous reader writes "According to ZDNET Microsoft is going to be keynoting the Australian Unix and Open Systems Users Group conference. From the article: '"Don't be put off by Chris' Microsoft badge -- he is actually a long time Unix hacker," the user group said today in a statement updating users on presentations at the conference ... Green, Microsoft's local Unix Interoperability and High Performance Computing specialist, will update the conference on his company's "Unix and open source-related activities, including their efforts to provide a POSIX environment in Windows, and to integrate Windows and Unix systems."'"
Stigma (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stigma (Score:2)
Re:Stigma (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Stigma (Score:2)
I'd be more interested in listening to the Microsoft perspective on OSS, UNIX/MS integration and Windows/Posix, than just a guy telling me his ideas.
Why would it be a bad thing?
Re:Stigma (Score:2)
So why would I want to hear about Microsoft's perspective on open source when they have yet to embrace it?
Re:Stigma (Score:2)
Of course - it doesn't matter. This guy isn't setting policy. He's not directing business strategy. And it's Microsoft's business history that makes it very odd to have them as a keynote speaker.
Way to prove if Matt's talk is bullshit or not (Score:2)
Great. But what about authentication? He has two options:
* Use LDAP authentication. This is not what Windows does, as it loses all the single sign on benefits of Kerberos (with LDAP, your initial login will not give you a credential you can use to check your mail, authenticate and map to an NFS export, pull stuff out of SVN, etc, with Kerberos it will). If Matt uses LDAP he's showing you how to
I call bull hockey! (Score:5, Informative)
From the slashdot article:
I call bullhockey on this. A lot of slashdotters probably aren't even old enough to remember when Microsoft first came out with NT. Their PR releases were all abuzz with their new advanced technology OS with special emphasis on their intent to have a POSIX compliant OS. At the same time they talked me into working for them (took three offers, a signing bonus, and a pretty nice stock option offer), under the ostensible work they'd have for me to provide support for their POSIX subsystem.
Once I was in the door, and within the first week I attended what was described as a "presentation on NT's POSIX subsystem", presented by the POSIX team. That team turned out to be a guy named Matt (don't know his last name).
The project manager Margaret (don't remember HER last name) got up before the presentation and said (and I can only paraphrase, I don't remember verbatim, but guarantee the accuracy of the spirit of her comments): "Before we proceed with this presentation, there's one thing I (Microsoft) want to make clear. The POSIX subsystem is a check box. We're only doing it to fulfill the requirement to have POSIX so we can get government contracts."
I was almost physically ill, what was to be MY role (my background was Unix) if their POSIX was to be a sham? (BTW, not only did they not intend to support it, they only implemented the API portion of POSIX, not the user environment and utilities.)
I called Larry Kroger who was in charge of things and desparately asked him what I was supposed to tell people who were asking POSIX support questions. He told me, "tell them we don't support it.". What if they ask about future plans for POSIX? He replied, "tell them we have no plans.".
Forgive me if have doubts about Microsoft's purity in "plans" today to do POSIX.
Oh, and for the record, anyone who doubts my accounts... the entire presentation was videotaped (1992), as were all of their internal presentations. I only assume it would still be available today but if it is, it will reflect my accounting of events.
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:4, Funny)
They did video tape the presentation and it has been added to the microsoft underground archives at 1407 Graymalkin Lane. So much has been put away there, ideas that were deemed to "risky" but never allowed their creators to have because of non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. I remember my lawyer spent almost 8 hours going over my NDA and NCA before he even new what all I was agreeing to.
The POSIX design was needed for the certain government contracts, but don't forget the way that we managed to get the CMMI Level 5 before we even had a released product. The one thing that bothered me more than anything was the conversation they had 3 after the one you mentioned..
After getting the entire crew on board with the design specs and milestone timeline the NT CTO Erik Lehnsherr called a meeting of the respective heads. The delimna was the actual networking protocol, at the time there was NetBios, AppleTalk, and TCP/IP and they all pretty much sucked. We had some code from meeting the IEEE standards for IPv4, but the implementation was beyond ugly.
We ended up actually "borrowing" a lot of the code from FreeBSD. So I guess while the filesystem, operating structure, standard binary compliance, and pretty much everything else, NT did have POSIX compliance.
Did you ever work with Henry McCoy while he was there?
READ THIS BEFORE MODERATING PARENT!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Ororo Munroe = Storm
Erik Lehnsherr = Magneto
Henry McCoy = Beast
1407 Graymalkin Lane is the fictional address of Professor Xavier's mansion.
The parent post is a troll.
-GameMaster
Re:READ THIS BEFORE MODERATING PARENT!!! (Score:2)
+2 points for knowing not only all the characters, but catching the address too ... NICE
Re:READ THIS BEFORE MODERATING PARENT!!! (Score:2)
I thought the troll was hilarious.
Re:READ THIS BEFORE MODERATING PARENT!!! (Score:2)
I couldn't do something stupid like say Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, or Peter Parker worked with me. Those names are too "famous" and sellout wannabe's would be able to get the joke.
No, my joke could only be appreciated by someone with a minimum level of nerd to them, or in this case, someone with a minimal amount of sleuthing skills (IE: g
Re:READ THIS BEFORE MODERATING PARENT!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory reply (Score:2)
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE [wikipedia.org]
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2, Informative)
That Microsoft created the original POSIX subsystem for government complian
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft bought Softway Systems to keep it a limited phenomenon, and to make sure it shrunk in power, didn't grow. They probably had Softway Systems by the balls in the first place, of course, because in order to get access to the trade secrets to integrate a powerful POSIX api with the NT kernel, they probably signed mega-NDA contracts.
I do remember that there was a period before Microsoft purchased Softway Systems when Softway was sending out appeals to the Open Source Community asking if Interix should be 'open sourced.' Not sure if that was a sham appeal or not.
But 'Services For Unix' is not _For_ Unix. It's for defending against Unix.
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2, Informative)
You are ABSOLUTELY DEAD ON with your observations. We discovered Interix, and had very high hopes for using it, and even were in contact with its engineers about their product, how we liked it, how we wanted it to grow, etc. But they were living in constant fear of their lives. You are right, they had to do heavy duty NDA, and then when it came time to renew licensing Microsoft turned the screws essentially squeezing them out, then buying them. Forget growing THAT market... the last thing Microsoft want
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
I'll answer this question for you. To enable developers to port and UNIX apps on their Windows servers. It's been a long-time strategy with mixed success (I could go on and on on why I think it was mixed).
But 'Services For Unix' is not _For_ Unix. It's for defending against Unix.
It's for integrating into UNIX-based (and NIS) infrastructures and providing
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't. With Softway Interix it was easy to install various services that made it trivial to install services to telnet into NT and run a command prompt, with programs like vi and other common Unix shell-based tools. The vi editor mysteriously disappeared in Microsoft Interix, becoming an awkwa
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
It is obivious that you haven't use the product.
I'm using it right now, dumb ass.
Still I've never had any security or files issues from NSF between Unix flavored machines.
Then you follow under one of the following categories:
1.) Haven't been using NFS long
2.) Are blissfully ignorant
3.) Lying.
NFS is legendary for its security problems and shoddy perfor
Troll here often? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it was a necessary feature thrown in to allow the government to avoid having to throw away all their software once the operating systems they originally developed on were no longer optimal. Games of "catch the moving API" can be fun and profitable for operating system vendors, but they're not so great for third party developers and users. The idea behind having a portable interface was to allow customers to choose different operating systems based on price, features, and performance. Obviously that's not the kind of market that a vendor can siphon tens of billions of dollars of profit from, however - I'm sure Microsoft much prefers the current situation where customers can choose different operating systems based on price, features, performance, and having to rewrite or replace all their unique applications.
Re:Troll here often? (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) That's funny -- when Microsoft does this, it's called "vendor lock-in".
2.) Microsoft is notorious for backwards compatibility in their APIs. Probably a bit too much, actually.
3.) Microsoft's XENIX was still going strong back then.
4.) Microsoft wasn't a 300lbs gorilla back then, they were the IBM underdogs just over their honeymoon period.
The idea behind having a portable interface was to allow customers to choose different operating systems based on price, features, and performance.
s/different operating systems/UNIX/
The POSIX spec is based off of, and therefore highly prejudice towards UNIX. And since there weren't but a few major versions of UNIX, there wasn't really much choice involved. You picked your OS, and then got locked in via server hardware and maintenance contracts.
Obviously that's not the kind of market that a vendor can siphon tens of billions of dollars of profit from, however - I'm sure Microsoft much prefers the current situation where customers can choose different operating systems based on price, features, performance, and having to rewrite or replace all their unique applications.
Microsoft's monopoly appears to be dwindling, either due to the rise of opponents like Linux, or per the natural cycle of life and death.
What API CAN'T you write for on Windows? We have the shitty POSIX subsystem, SFU, cygwin, win32,
Re:Troll here often? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, unless you've moved up to a 64-bit architecture, you've still got compatibility with win16 and MS-DOS (for the love of God). Early OS/2.
Anyone who claims that Microsoft doesn't do broad, highly backward-compatible API support is just arguing out of ignorance.
Re:Troll here often? (Score:2)
What's funny about it? Are you suggesting that the customer shouldn't be able to set their own specifications?
When the customer does it, it would be called "customer lock-in" - oh, well *that's* funny.
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
I was almost physically ill, what was to be MY role (my background was Unix) if their POSIX was to be a sham?
How is implementing something that passes POSIX compliance levels a sham? Did you think you were coming aboard to turn their whole OS into something more like Unix? Sounds to me like they were honest to you developers upfront regarding their goals... and those goals, s
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:3, Informative)
of course, it's simply par for the course for microsoft. speaks volumes about their lack of ethics.
Re:I call bull hockey! (Score:2)
Predictions (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Predictions (Score:5, Funny)
It's either I'm sooo confused... (Score:1)
So it's come down to Unix against Linux now? (Score:1, Interesting)
he must be the "token unix guy" (Score:1, Insightful)
which is a bit like including 3 black people and a handicapped guy in your 20,000 workforce
"see we are not racist, we employ minorities"
Microsoft to lecture us on unix? (Score:5, Funny)
Ms. Hilton (Score:2, Funny)
"What is Microsoft? Do they, like, sell micro stuff?"
Re:Microsoft to lecture us on unix? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
First suggestion for Windows interoperability (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't ext3 basically ext2 plus a journal? How could you be able to write ext2 without being about to write ext3?
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Here you go (sort of) (Score:2, Informative)
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm [swin.edu.au]
http://ext2fsd.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
http://freesourcecodes.tripod.com/ext2.htm [tripod.com]
http://p-nand-q.com/e/reiserfs.html [p-nand-q.com]
http://www.wolfsheep.com/map/#RFSGUI [wolfsheep.com]
http://www.it.fht-esslingen.de/~zimmerma/software/ ltools.html [fht-esslingen.de]
The above links were all gathered from http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm [swin.edu.au] I've not tried any of them, but this [fs-driver.org] one looks the most polished. YMMV, knock yourself out, etc.
Re:Here you go (sort of) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First suggestion for Windows interoperability (Score:2, Informative)
In othe news, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In othe news, (Score:2)
Sounds familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Strange Days (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, maybe they do things differently down under. Take folks as you find them. Whoever this guy is, he could well have some very interesting and useful things to say. Claiming that the guy couldn't have anything worthwhile to say because he works for Microsoft is pretty dumb as well as rude to the local Australian group.
Re:Strange Days (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strange Days (Score:2)
Great opportunity! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great opportunity! (Score:2)
POSIX? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:POSIX? (Score:2)
Source: The Open Group [opengroup.org]'s POSIX FAQ [opengroup.org]
Re:POSIX? (Score:2)
Wow, he's going to be pissed off with you for calling him that...
Pfft (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell (Score:3, Funny)
In other news; next week Steve Jobs will be announcing an XPod video player for the Xbox 360.
Long-time Unix Hacker... (Score:5, Interesting)
"... I was unix hacker for a long time before I decided Microsoft's the way to go
Re:Long-time Unix Hacker... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's possible that everyone there was a unix geek. If they've been around long enough, that's really the only opti
Re:Long-time Unix Hacker... (Score:5, Insightful)
It works on the principle that if he introduces himself as a MS guy, the Linux faithful will think "This man works for The Enemy" and disregard everything he says.
On the other hand, if he stands there and says "I was a UNIX hacker..." then folk start thinking "one of us! Let's hear what he has to say..." instead of keeping keeping firmly in mind that A) he's still employed by the Enemy B) would not have been sent except to evangelise and C) probably had his speech written by marketdroids at Redmond.
You can see the same approach at work in a couple of dozen Slashdot posts every time there is a Linux thread: "I used Linux for years until I finally realised..." "Much as I love Linux, I have to say..." "I use Linux on all my home machines, but in the real world..."
It's just another scummy marketing trick. That's all.
Re:Long-time Unix Hacker... (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't say Unix was "better" than Windows -- but that working for MS was better than working in Unix. Which is likely true for them and many others. Lots of people spend their days working on useless crap, because that's what you get paid to do. The product isn't really that important, it's your quality of life, at the office and what you can buy with the paycheque.
BS ... and freedom matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not fall for it at all. Free software is inherently better than proprietary software because it is first of all free, and then and only then is it often better for technical or usage reasons. In free markets, freedom maters. None of the fundamentals have changed, you are what you hold yourself accountable to.
Re:BS ... and freedom matters (Score:2)
If I would attend, I would be glad if everyone kept their goddamn politics out of this and just let me hear his talk about this bit and that packet.
Transparency Rulez (Score:2)
it is transparent. You forgot to say transparency.
When you look at free software you can see all the way through it and not just some shiny surface. That way you're better able to judge whether the software will serve your needs both now and in the future. Closed-source, proprietary software is buying a pig in a poke.
BTW, transparency is also a really great idea in scientific publishing, accounting (especially in publicly traded compa
Re:BS ... and freedom matters (Score:2, Interesting)
So this is why most open source apps are exact copies of their Windows counterparts(The UI especially)?
Since when? I use both OS software and Windows, and few of the OS software are exact copies of Windows anything. KDE, for example, is definitely not Explorer. It's not only more stable and far more configurable, it's just plain different. QtParted compared to Partition Magic? QtParted is way better and faster and has a simpler interface. Parition Magic is painfully slow by comaprison. There is no resem
Re:BS ... and freedom matters (Score:2)
You don't understand freedom. For example, in the old USSR they had steel mills that were for more advanced and far more larger then their western counterparts. They were superior by every measure, the russian space program also. But the reality was that they we
Re:BS ... and freedom matters (Score:2)
My point about the steel industry was relative to the time. And this ...
it's because there was no profit motive for ANYBODY involved, except the owners in the government who grew rich by oppressing & mistreating their workers...
You answered your own question right there. There is always a profit motive, but government interference shifts it. Like with copyrights. There are no natural limits in supply and demand of information, so when government microregulates and creates some artifically then
They just reset (Score:2)
Good sign, don't hold your breath. (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows isn't everything, if they're able to get in with the open source crowd they could design components, get everyone hooked and essentially take over the platform. This would take more than a fiscal quarter, which is probably the only reason they haven't already.
Well, thats what I would do if I were the CEO.
Bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now excuse me as I go back to finish working, I was using OpenOffice.org (latest beta of v2) and it's wonderfull and I'm carefull to make sure I submit any bugs I find. That's my part.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:2)
It's not too late for them to play nice, but they won't.
Here's what will happen; MS will *never* genuinely "play nice" unless it benefits them (although they may briefly try to give that appearance to screw over some naive customers etc.)
MS's mentality is such that even if it were to their benefit to "play nice
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
gui interoperability! ssh and X11 (Score:3, Interesting)
im not talking about full sessions (remote terminal/vnc/nx etc) but apps that blend in with your desktop and those running from other machines. X11 is the already used standard for this.
its like windows is hostile to X11 or something. on a mac (yes, 10.4 on a g4) i can watch a movie in firefox over X11 over ssh and forget its even remote, hell, i can even run blender like that.
but on windows ssh + X11 are hacked on 3rd party kludges...how long will MS pretend ssh doesnt exist? single sign on with ssh and X11 and SMB is like from a windows PDC/KDC only (for you konfused KDE freaks, thats key distribution server, as in kerberos) and still looks like a hack easily ruined by the next upgrade (new to smb, so maybe its my ignorance)
those two would make windows play so much better in a unix network. of course, it would also mean that windows is just playing along, and NOT the needed master so MS would probably not see "value" in it...
David Korn (Score:4, Interesting)
UNIX geek: Feature X in your korn shell implementation isn't true to the korn shell spec. Wnen do you plan to fix that?
MS guy: We're certain it's copmatible with the standard. Are you sure you don't have it wrong?
UNIX geek: Yes, I'm sure. It's broken.
MS guy: And who are you?
UNIX geek: I'm David Korn.
May or may not be true, but it was an amusing story, nonetheless.
Re:David Korn (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/06/20302
Re:David Korn (Score:3, Informative)
Valid and intresting (Score:2)
A Mark Of The Beast (Score:3, Funny)
May we consider he became a traitor, please?
What its all about (Score:2, Interesting)
When you are considering deploying Linux in your business, you first need to make sure your entire toolchain is platform independent. You move all your stuff to open source apps which historically have spotty support on windows, and then just swap out the o/s. Better POSIX support means this proces is eaiser (it also means more options for win32
Re:Yeah it's odd (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah it's odd (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be put off by the 666 tattooed on his forehead and the left leg
Yeah, it just means his is readable and writable by himself, his group, and others :).
Re:Yeah it's odd (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it just means his is readable and writable by himself, his group, and others :).
Its a good thing he's not executable, or this joke would be killing him.
Re:To MS, "integrating" really means "switch to MS (Score:2)
Re:doesn't matter what he DID before, he works for (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine it's the Krusty the Klown defense on why one must sell out:
Sobs for a few breaths then exclaims in anguish, "They parked a dumptruck full of cash on my front yard! What else could I do!?!?!?" More emphatic sobbing.
Re:doesn't matter what he DID before, he works for (Score:2)
Now Scratchy seems to be THAT stupid, but Krusty?
So this might explain why a person( Chris Green ) would sell out, but organizers of a *nix conference? Are they secretly
Re: (Score:2)
What's a "Useres Group"? (Score:2)
Re:MS rep gave a presentation at our LUG meeting (Score:2)
Re:Mini-Question about VMWare and Windows (Score:2)
Yes, it works, and there's a whole slew (if you believe their newsletter) of VMWare consultants who will happily set you up with such a setup.
For me, the "workstation" version suited my "windows server running on Linux" needs, but they do have spe
Re:Mini-Question about VMWare and Windows (Score:2)
Re:Mini-Question about VMWare and Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Have you even used VMWare? Servers are headless. As long as you're not doing anything graphically intensive, VMWare performance is quite acceptable. The GUI is still quite responsive. In fact, browsing, word, etc. activities fool the user into thinking it's running native when in full-screen mode. You honestly can't tell until you go to play a movie or a game (movies still work, mostly).
In fact, using VMWare to manage servers is where VMWare excels.
He said he wanted to use it as a server under a Linux host.
And this, along with running servers under Windows hosts, is a _EXACTLY_ what a large portion of VMWare's core business is, apart from being useful for helpdesk operators. Check out their two most expensive products: "server infrastructure". And not that everyone uses GSX/ESX for "server" work either; I'm not the only one who has found VMWare Workstation edition useful in consolidating windows (and *NIX) servers onto one machine.
Even if Microsoft supported VMWare it would not get any faster due to the way it works.
MS _DOES_ support VMWare. WHQL certified drivers and everything.
If he wanted to use a virtual Windows server, something like Xen is the only choice.
Perhaps you should add a little disclaimer to your comments, something along the lines of "that's what I think, but I don't know because I've never used it, never researched it, and in fact I don't know anything about it all".
See my other post in this thread.
Re:Mini-Question about VMWare and Windows (Score:2)
I think what you saw was the exception, not the norm. VMWare is a very successful product. For the majority of applications where I've deployed it I have not seen anywhere near the slow-down you have noticed. You say you aren't interested in windows, but you're talking about "Remote Desktop"? If you ask me, I thin
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Unix and Microsoft can co-exist
Xenix? [wikipedia.org].
Of course they can coexist -- in a technical sense. But can they coexist, when they compete for the same market?