Slashdot Mirror

If you like the NT microkernel, you can bypass the Win32 API by purchasing Interix. It's a Posix-compliant layer that runs directly on the NT kernel, alongside the Win32 layer. It's pricey, but comes with the Exceed X server, Motif, and GCC. I've run X11 code on an NT box and displayed it on an Linux machine running X. Also, although I haven't tried it, there's a port of X11R6 to Interix running on the NT kernel. Interix is Posix certified, btw, not just mostly-there.

We paid off on egcs, for sure. We're now in the process of working with the egcs gang to roll those changes (and a bunch more) into the 1.2 egcs release (well, now the gcc 2.95 release). Our changes do more than just support Interix; they fix a whole lot of broken stuff for support of Alpha processors in 32-bit mode (as used by Cygwin32 as well as Interix), some floating point bugs, some g77 problems, etc. The "leg up" on egcs 1.1 we got from the port was worth more to us than the money we paid out; the amount of time it took the person doing the work was less than he believed the money justified. Everyone came out ahead.

The emacs port was close, but no cigar; not enough worked. I'm pretty sure we paid out on TeX.

2. MS is NOW writing a Lunix clone (think I remember a /. article on this...but don't see it in the older section...could be simply delusional) as well as porting IE to Linux - embrace and extend from multiple fronts

They might be also writing a Linux clone but in Windows 2000 there is going to be the capability to run Linux applications on top of Windows. They got together with Interix to achieve this.

The company called Softway sells Interix, a product to "Allow Windows NT to run Linux applications." IMHO they do themselves a disservice by advertising it as such. I guess it's their way of getting on the Linux bandwagon. What they are actually selling is a POSIX compliant (POSIX certified, actually!) API layer that runs on the NT microkernel. It replaces Microsoft's crippled POSIX layer with a real one on which Unix apps can be compiled and run. (GCC is bundled with it, and it can also use MSVC 4) It doesn't provide a runtime environment for actual Linux-built binaries to run.

It's cool to be able to compile and run X Window applications (Motif is bundled with Interix) on the NT Kernel.

I downloaded and compiled GNU Chess last night, and it built without a single error.

I think that the whole name issue has become a rather moot point. I also beleive that RMS is not exactly lost in mind about it. Whether or not there is a shift in the name as the majority of us call it, he's already driven the point home and is probably most obviously aware of just how much attention the whole issue has brought to light. He's already won his "Holy War" if you want to call it that.

Even if you choose to only call the OS 'Linux', and were not aware of GNU's contribution (I personally can't see one not being so), chances are pretty fair that you do now.

Anyone outside of the community will most likely know now as well. Or at least know of it's existence. Thus with any luck, those might be fortunate enough to actually grasp what GNU and or FSF actually stands for. We all already know that GNU does not stand for RMS. =)

Whether Richard Stallman is a raving egotistical madman or is someone of great endurance and virtue remains upon which side of the fence the judge has spent the majority of their life.

Not that I matter, but my view on it seems to lend itself quite easily to the idea that what RMS is trying to "pull off", is something more along the lines of educating the uneducated.

Unfortunately it seems that at least 'some' the vocal parts of our community that _are_ "educated" are taking his 'preachings' as something that is directed at them. In a way it is becuase of word of mouth. But as a whole, I'm pretty sure that the established community already knows the virtues of free software. With people flocking to Linux, open source et al, I would think it would be in our best interest for people to actually get in and 'drive' rather than just kick the tires.

It's not like we're being told how to tie our shoes all over again. Or how we prefer to tie them. The main point is that we know and can.

The whole name issue is also a matter of your own view as to what an OS actually is. Is it a kernel or is it what sits on top? I say it's both. But I remind you all that if I take away my interface to the OS, ie. my monitor for one example, the OS still exists, but my ability to use it has been lost/diminished. Obviously an interface to the OS is extremely important. But not so important that I cannot say that it is a variable part of my computer system. Surely I can replace my NEC monitor and use a compatable Acer instead. Maybe the picture quality is reduced by such a switch, but no less usable.

In abstraction, I view the kernel in the same fashion. Without it, there is no 'speak' to the hardware. You all already know this. I would also hardly call NT, Linux if somehow you replaced the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. It wouldn't even be a Unix or Unixish system even still. You would have to add what's 'on top' along side of the rest of NT to do it. Even then, NT is still not Unixish. The other half would be. IE. Interix as an example, is pretty much a Unixish system yet runs on top of the NT kernel along side the whole NT system. Interix is not NT, yet uses the NT kernel. It is also being reviewed as yet another possible Unix in it's own rite. (Yikes. Unix running on an NT kernel which runs on top of a microkernel. It's been around for a while. Anyone use it? Just curious)

The Kernel is an interface to the hardware. It's a very important piece to the OS as a whole. We all know that already. We also should know that if we ever chose to replace the kernel (heaven forbid) the UI and command line will probably look and feel just the way you are used to it looking and feeling. This is a rather simplistic argument but it can be understood. Of course you would feel uncomfortable about calling it Linux, but really now, if system performance were somewhat on par with the norm, would you be able to tell the difference? I mean aside from coding for it. =)

Maybe this is the issue here. I don't code. I'm limited to scripting languages. Perhaps since the community is largely coding based or even brought up from a coding base, the term Linux would be more fitting. As that is probably what is important to the programmers. At least someone who codes would be more intimate with the kernel than say someone like myself.

The chicken or the egg? I admire what RMS has accomplished and as well as what he is currently trying to do regarding this particular issue. But I don't see a compromise short of calling the OS something completely different. And I can't see that happening either. So for me as well as many others regardless of thier reasons, Linux on it's own will have to suffice.

If one MUST conform to any particular name, then I say don't bite the hand that feeds you. I still admire RMS and what it is that he preaches as I've come to know many of you do as well, but I'd say that the rest of the tribe that have done thier part have fed me the most. Regardless of the portions served by any one entity in itself. I'm not one for popular opinion or following the masses. But this time I see it fairly reasonable to do so.

Calling Linux, GNU/Linux would most definitely help the free software movement. But would it also hurt it it were not called GNU/Linux?

I'm not entirely sure. But I don't think that it would.

The community itself does a pretty darn good job of advocating free software and the likes on it's own it seems. Flames and all. =)

Interix (www.interix.com) have something similar to run Unix/Linux apps on NT.

In what way is Interix, a product that provides a UNIX-compatible environment under NT, letting you compile source code for UNIX applications and run the resulting binaries under NT, "similar" to something that provides a virtual machine in which you can run a complete foreign operating system's binary code, including kernel-mode code?

(No, you can't run binaries from a UNIX-flavored system under Interix; the Interix FAQ says as much in the section "The INTERIX Environment":

Can I run any of my UNIX applications with INTERIX?

INTERIX doesn't allow you to take UNIX binaries (Linux/BSD/SCO/AIX etc.) and run that binary on a Windows NT system. The INTERIX Software Development Kit is a source level tool that allows you to take existing open systems source code and recompile the source code into a native NT binary with little or no effort.

look here