Slashdot Mirror

Windows NT has had a POSIX layer since the beginning. At any point Microsoft could have extended this and ported over GNU tools if they had wanted. The whole thing smells of bullshit, and Powershell is not bash.

And actually they've done that. The POSIX subsystem has been extended to POSIX.2, and you can get a small library of pre-compiled programs for it. Including, yes, a port of Bash.

MS also has existing software available for making Windows UNIX compatible, "UNIX Services for Windows", if memory serves. It's not a long distance from that to GNU compatibility.

With Cygwin already around, and UNIX being open and readily able to be integrated into Windows, it would be a smart way to envelop potential UNIX users. Personally I'd like a Microsoft supported Cygwin, which isn't as buggy and doesn't feel as detached from Windows.

bash-3.00$ uname -a
Interix bobspc 6.0 10.0.6000.0 x86 Intel_x86_Family6_Model15_Stepping10
bash-3.00$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /opt/gcc.3.3/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-interix3/3.3/specs
Configured with: : (reconfigured) : (reconfigured) /dev/fs/D/gnu2.intel/egcs.s
ource//configure --verbose --prefix=/opt/gcc.3.3 --disable-shared --with-stabs -
-enable-nls --with-local-prefix=/opt/gcc.3.3 --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --enabl
e-targets=i586-pc-interix3 --enable-threads=posix
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3
bash-3.00$ pwd
/dev/fs/C/Users/bob

if MS had supported POSIX / UNIX APIs in a protected mode subsystem, would Linux have really "happened"?

Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:

To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000

Afternoon all,

Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
(Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.

With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
archives.

According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have
already been ported over and are currently available for download for
$30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
(http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is
provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.

While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
version which will accept localhost connections only
(http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm) .

At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
with your favourite window manager.

For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
being a two way street.

Sam

Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:

To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000

Afternoon all,

Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
(Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.

With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
archives.

According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have
already been ported over and are currently available for download for
$30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
(http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is
provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.

While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
version which will accept localhost connections only
(http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm) .

At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
with your favourite window manager.

For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
being a two way street.

Sam

Unix Services for Windows (Interix) http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/d efault.mspx is also a freely available download. Unfortunately, you have to download a number of other packages to make it completely useful: http://www.interix.com/

"We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so we can get government contracts..."

Thus a few years later, MS is getting sued because of a landed US Fed Gov't contract (DoD, I believe) where the RFP called for a POSIX-based solution.

A bunch of other POSIX "experts" get together while the trial is going on and decide they can implement this thing. They form Softway Systems, producing Interix, and get acquired by MS.

MS at the time had an SFU (Services for Unix) pack that included MKS tools.

Somewhat interesting (though not surprising) is that some of the principals at Softway are former MKS employees.

Novell eDirectory and the DirXML ADS driver will facilitate integration with the x.500 standards compliant (for once) ADS 2k3/MS-LDAP.

If you need an interim solution, talk to Interix. They can make ADS talk to anything.

http://www.interix.com/ has free addon packages for SFY, including bash (with working tab completion), gnu tar (for those addicted to 'tar zxvf', and a bunch of other stuff. They're rather easy to install, a couple of commands, all documented on the site. Cygwin is nice, don't get me wrong, but SFY's integration with windows seems tighter overall, with less of cygwin's issues. SFY also includes a very nice nfs driver that lets you mount nfs shares in windows just like samba ones.

Can be found from Interix. You can change the crappy KSH to Bash and get a nice build system up and going in no time. I normally use Cygwin but I'm going to give this a try, even if it isn't GPL'd.

First it was OpenNT from a comapny called Softway Systems which provided a fully POSIX-compliant subsystem replacement for NT.

Later, Softway renamed it to Interix, 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'.

Interix used OpenBSD as is evidenced at deadly.org

So like 95% of it is just OpenBSD, mostly pulled from theh 3.0 release tree.

forgetting that Microsoft has the POSIX (called Interix) standard too as an execution model

There are several sources for GNU compatible toolchains available out-of-the-box for Windows.

So, to ask your question more broadly, why should anybody run Linux?

(this is meant as sarcasm, folks....)

Oh, by the way... the SFU uses Interix which contains all the items (GNU C, etc.) you were describing Microsoft being evil for "selling"... they are being "licensed" to MS by Interop Systems.

Oh, by the way... the SFU uses Interix which contains all the items (GNU C, etc.) you were describing Microsoft being evil for "selling"... they are being "licensed" to MS by Interop Systems.

then they'll send me a bunch of free software

The only "free software" that Microsoft distributes is the GPL'd components of Interix, MS's competitor to Red Hat's Cygwin. I'll assume that by "free software" you mean "royalty-free licenses for Microsoft software".

which I can then resell on Ebay.

I don't think so. Microsoft would be more likely to give you a free, non-transferable license to use the software. Given the outcome the last time Microsoft products were offered on eBay, Microsoft Licensing isn't as naive as some Slashdot readers would think.

If you don't mind letting Bill into your home, you could use INTERIX by Softway Systems (who have been bought by Microsoft last year), which - as far as I recall - used to be called OpenNT some time ago. It is an environment to develop, port and/or run UNIX applications on/to Windows.
Look it up at http://www.interix.com/NewInter ix/main_overview.htm

I have had very little experience with the product, so this more a mention than a recommendation.


Greetings

If you want Exceed on an NT/W2K system, check out the more expensive version of Interix rather than buying Exceed alone. It's about the same amount of money, and you get a whole Posix subsystem to run on the NT Kernel, the GNU tools, GCC, Motif, etc. It's kind of a rush to build Motif Apps on NT and run them native, in parallel with Win32 apps on the same hardware (but in completely separate API subsystems). A lot of Unix/Linux/BSD apps just plain build and run on Interix right out of the source tarball. There is irony in running X apps on an NT box and displaying them on a Unix X desktop.

I'm not sure that since Microsoft bought Interix it consists of the same 'bundle' with Exceed as it was a year ago when I sprung the $300+ for a copy, but it's worth looking into, as you'll spend close to that for Exceed alone from Hummingbird.

Here is the source page: http://www.interix.com/tw/main_contrib. html

Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch

It turns out the source IS on the interix site here: >http://www.interix.com/tw/main_contrib. html</a>

Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch

Sorry... wrong URL... dig through the site some more and you will find the source for the specified utilities (plus some others) at ftp://www.interix.com/newpub/t w/unsup/gnu/gpl.util.tgz.

The GPL'ed source code is available at http://www.interix.com/tw/main_contrib.ht ml.

Oh, wouldn't that be just peachy if Microsoft got control of the whole ball of whacks!

Well, seeing as how Microsoft is already selling a version of the GNU C Compiler in a product they recently acquired (a Posix subsystem for NT called Interix), it seems they're already rolling down that path.

Solaris was licensed from AT&T originally, so it could call itself Unix; HP-UX was implemented independently and could not call itself Unix.

Umm, as far as I know, HP-UX, at least on the 68K and PA-RISC machines, is ultimately derived from AT&T UNIX (there was one other box they made with a UNIX built atop some special kernel they did, on a processor that was neither a commodity processor nor a PA-RISC processor - but even there I think most of the userland stuff, at least, was probably derived from AT&T UNIX), as is Solaris (and Solaris is, as far as I know, far from just being vanilla SVR4).

As for making WIndows NT into a Unix, it's already been done; for a while it was being sold as Open NT.

And now it's being sold as Interix.

NT qualifies under UNIX98 branding as a Unix system when running the compatibility overlay previously known as Interix/OpenNT. Covered in this ZDNet article.

They don't seem to be listed on The Open Group's page listing UNIX 95-branded products, but I don't know if that page lists everybody who got the brand (that being the brand the ZDNet article says they went for).

It is, however, from the stuff on Interix on the Interix Web site, a lot more UNIX-compatible than is the native POSIX subsystem on NT.

MVS has also qualified for Unix branding, IIRC.

Well, OS/390 did, but "OS/390" is just the latest in the series of names assigned to various descendants of OS/360, MVS being an earlier such name for the descendant that's now OS/390.

You should look at Microsoft Interix, which is a loadable UNIX subsystem for Windows NT. It doesn't emulate "Linux", but it does meet the UNIX specifications.
--

It's undergoing certicfication, so NT+Interix could be MORE UNIX than Linux! (technically)

I have it running here, and it sites besides the Win32 subsystem on NTs kernel, NOT on top like emulation would do. This is a true Unix in NT!

Check out these pages:

Interix PR

Interix Info

it'

well sortof. interix was mentioned before but i thought it should be restated:

Interix.com

i used this for a while back when it was called opennt. then (i believe) the microsoft nazi's put the smack down and they had to change their name. its pretty neat. i believe it came with ksh and csh and some other neat utilities.


john

You're wrong. Linux isn't fully Posix compliant.

It's fully Posix-wannabe.

And someone should pony up the cash to get it certified as compliant.

Then, of course, that version (whichever particular big bag-o-third-party-junk, also known as a "distribution" was tested), will be Posix-compliant. Until the next version, of course. Which will appear before the testing can be completed.

With a project like Linux, which is really just a big snowball of GPL'd code rolling along picking up code in it's path, it would be difficult to certify anything as Posix compliant. Well, I guess if they'd started the testing, Red Hat 4.2 might be Posix compliant by now...

If you want Windows NT to be Posix compliant (and therefore more worthy to be called Unix than Linux) just buy and install the Interix subsystem and install it. Interix is a compliant Posix subsystem for NT (it includes X11, Motif, the GCC, etc.)

Then tell all your friends that your NT box is Posix compliant, and therefore more Unix than their Linux box. Duck for cover after doing so, of course.

it would be the coolest thing, because I'm forced to run windows at work, and then I could run all the cool linux stuff too with just "./configure && make && make install"

You can do the above on Windows NT by purchasing Interix. It's a proprietary POSIX API that replaces the crippled one on Windows NT. It includes GCC and everything you need to do the above ( "./configure && make ** make install"). The result runs in a posix shell (bash can be installed, tcsh is one of the defaults). It includes a complete implementation of X11, so X apps can be built, then run on your NT box and displayed in Exceed, or exported to the X desktop on your Unix/Linux box. It's kind of different to run X apps on an NT box and display them on a Unix box. But it's possible, and fairly impressive.

The major difference between MainWin and this being CygWin is open source.

No, the major difference between MainWin and Cygwin is that they go in opposite directions; MainWin provides a Win32 API atop UNIX-compatible OSes, while Cygwin provides a UNIX API atop Win32 OSes. If you want to contrast Cygwin to a non-open-source UNIX-apps-atop-Windows product, contrast it with Interix, and if you want to contrast MainWin with open-source Windows-apps-atop-UNIX software, contrast it with Wine or TWIN or Twine, say.

basically, their goal in buying mainsoft

Mainsoft, or Softway? Microsoft did buy Softway, whose Interix product is sort of an inverse MainWin (it's a subsystem+libraries for NT that lets you recompile source code written for applications for UNIX-compatible OSes and run them on NT), but I have seen no announcement that they bought Mainsoft.

Microsoft probably views Interix as a way to get a site to move to NT if they have a pile of (in-house) UNIX apps, as the press release on their purchase suggests:

"Our acquisition of Softway's assets is a demonstration of our commitment to provide interoperability for applications and other solutions between UNIX and Windows," said Keith White, Director of Marketing, Business and Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While we recommend that customers migrate their software solutions to native 32-bit Windows, today's announcement allows certain customers to move rapidly to a Windows NT-based solution during that transition process."

and they probably view WISE (Windows Interface Source Environment) products such as MainWin as a way of encouraging people to write Win32 applications rather than UNIX (or MacOS) applications.

My understanding of Interix is that it is not really an emulation layer (UNIX to Win32), but talks directly to the NT kernel (real enough?) independantly of the other subsystems.

Yup. See this white paper from Softway, and the diagram therein.

This would allow shops with one or two older Unix network apps to running them on an NT box that's presumably capable of running other applications at the same time.

Yup. The press release on the acquisition says

"Our acquisition of Softway?s assets is a demonstration of our commitment to provide interoperability for applications and other solutions between UNIX and Windows," said Keith White, Director of Marketing, Business and Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While we recommend that customers migrate their software solutions to native 32-bit Windows, today's announcement allows certain customers to move rapidly to a Windows NT-based solution during that transition process."

so your comment

I have no idea how it would help you port to Win32 other than the convience of being able to run the POSIX app right there.

seems to sum up Microsoft's thinking - you don't have to port all your apps immediately, you can dump your UNIX boxes and still run your UNIX apps, and then convert them to Win32 over time.

My understanding of Interix is that it is not really an emulation layer (UNIX to Win32), but talks directly to the NT kernel (real enough?) independantly of the other subsystems.

Yup. See this white paper from Softway, and the diagram therein.

This would allow shops with one or two older Unix network apps to running them on an NT box that's presumably capable of running other applications at the same time.

Yup. The press release on the acquisition says

"Our acquisition of Softway?s assets is a demonstration of our commitment to provide interoperability for applications and other solutions between UNIX and Windows," said Keith White, Director of Marketing, Business and Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While we recommend that customers migrate their software solutions to native 32-bit Windows, today's announcement allows certain customers to move rapidly to a Windows NT-based solution during that transition process."

so your comment

I have no idea how it would help you port to Win32 other than the convience of being able to run the POSIX app right there.

seems to sum up Microsoft's thinking - you don't have to port all your apps immediately, you can dump your UNIX boxes and still run your UNIX apps, and then convert them to Win32 over time.

Prediction:

Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.

To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)

What Microsoft bought has no ability to run binaries for any UNIX-flavored OS; see the "Can I run any of my UNIX applications with INTERIX?" item in the INTERIX FAQ, which says:

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.

Sure, it still is not going to be a *nix system but the more M$ can do to, at least, emulate an environment the more the management has an argument to stick to them and the harder it is going to become for the techies.

That at the end of the day the later ones get beaten up as it can only be their fault if things do not work; who cares. Do not be to happy about what is going on there.

He indicated that it worked by basically replacing the WIN32 subsystems of NT by separate code that was built on the NT HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) not Win32.

Are you certain he said that it was built on the HAL? The impression I had is that it's built on the native NT system-call API, just as, say, subsystems such as the Win32 subsystem are, and just as the core API libraries (e.g., kernel32.dll) are, and just as some executable images that come with NT are. See, for example, Softway's "The INTERIX Solution" white paper, which has a diagram labeled "The Interix architecture" showing the Interix and Win32 subsystems running atop the NT kernel (although that diagram doesn't note that some Win32 APIs are apparently built directly atop the kernel, in the sense that some routines in, say, kernel32.dll directly make system calls; I think one of the editions of Inside Windows NT says that ReadFile() and WriteFile() don't pass through the Win32 subsystem process - perhaps some of the Interix library routines implementing the UNIX API do the same).

Building it purely atop the HAL would mean it couldn't access files on the file systems available to Win32 applications, say, as the file system and device driver code inside the kernel isn't part of the HAL.

and the Qt widget set worked very well indeed on NT, albeit not as part of a window manager and desktop environment.

...and not atop X.

Seems like this is a neat and clever way for MS to smooth their transition from NT to a Un*x-family OS for application servers.

Or, as stated in the press release for the acquisition, to smooth the transition from UNIX to NT for UNIX users.

Well, I bought a copy of Interix for home about six months ago and have been wondering why it gets consistently ignored on Slashdot. I figured it probably was being viewed as a Bad Thing(tm) by Linux folks since it lets me build, run, and export (for display on any other machine running an X Server) X applications on my NT box. That means Motif(tm) and not just free attempts at Motif compatability. It was expensive (about $400 I remember) but pretty cool stuff. The GNU C compiler on NT, and not just a Win32 kludged version (see Cygnus for that)

A few months ago Softway Systems even put out a query to see if there was support for them Open Sourcing Interix. I imagine it would have been impossible, though, as they signed the NDA and were privy to the NT source code in order to develop their product (Interix talks directly to the NT kernel, and plugs as a replacement for the crippled Posix subsystem that MS came out with)

I have plugged in Linux/Unix applications as source code on Interix and had it just build and run flawlessly. Just like on a Linux system, explode the Tarball, run "sh ./configure" on it, then build using the resulting Makefiles. I believe I read on the Interix website that X11R6 has been ported to Interix. The full version comes bundled with Exceed (and Motif, etc.) in any event.

Interix is pretty cool stuff if you're running an NT system and want fairly good Unix compatability. I suspect Microsoft will be bundling it (or portions thereof) with Windows 2000. I wonder if I'll get any sort of deal for being a registered (paid quite a bit for it) Interix customer?

If M$ wanted true *nix/Posix compliance they could have made or bought it years ago (I may be a Linux Zealot, but I recognize the skills that M$ has at its disposal) -- ergo they don't want it.

Or, at least, they didn't want it until now. Perhaps they've decided that they now do want it, to try to help customers move rapidly towards a Windows NT-based solution...

...wait, it says precisely that in the press release announcing the acquisition.

I've yet to see anything to indicate that Microsoft's motivation is anything other than what's described therein; they may plan to kill the product once it's served its purpose, which is to get UNIX sites migrated to NT.

They are smarter than to promote a *nix<->NT layer capable of allowing the WordPerfect's of the world to move easily to Linux

This isn't a "*nix<->NT layer", it's a *nix->NT layer - it doesn't "allow the WordPerfect's of the world to move easily to Linux", it's intended to let applications move to NT, and may be aimed primarily at in-house applications rather than shrink-wrapped applications.

Microsoft could be preparing for some sort of Unix virtual machine to run within the NT kernel, supporting Unix apps,

That's exactly what Interix is (except that at least some of it presumably runs in a user-mode subsystem process rather than in the kernel).

Note, though, that it doesn't "[support] Unix apps" in the sense of running binaries from some flavor of UNIX, as the Interix FAQ notes (see "Can I run any of my UNIX applications with INTERIX?").

And among the OSS community, there would be widespread derision over their apps being used on the NT platform.

I think Microsoft can live with that (and note that some OSS applications, e.g. the GIMP, have been ported).

I don't remember if it was the same thing, but I tried an evaluation copy of a unix subsystem for NT, and it was rather neat. You could run windows and Unix apps at the same time, there was a useful command line shell, remote administration worked perfectly, and so did X. We had a nice laugh about the license (ranging from several thousand to a few million dollar per licence iirc) and uninstalled it again.

By the way (slightly off topic) it's annoying when sites like the one mentioned in the post do specify a background colour, but not a foreground colour. This way with my browser settings it shows up as white letters on a white background. When writing html, don't assume too much (like every sane person has black as default foreground colour).

Does it run X?

Yes, it "runs X" in the sense that you can build X applications to run in the Interix environment (although it appears its X11 environment is X11R5, not X11R6); "Interix Workstation", as opposed to "Interix Workstation Lite", comes with an X server and mwm, although the Interix FAQ says that Interix X applications should also work with other X servers on NT.

Who wants to port a UNIX app to NT?

The guy who ported the GIMP to Win32 apparently wanted to do so....

I wouldn't be too suprised to see Microsoft incorperate their own version of something like Cygwin into a 32bit command shell

Such a thing already exists. Interix has sold a Posix API for Windows NT for several years now. It's a native subsystem, so runs alongside Win32, not on top of it, and talks directly to the NT kernel. It includes Bash, GCC and (professional version) Motif. There is an X11R6 ported to it (but eXceed is the way to go there) It's Posix compliant (not just 'kinda' like the freenixes). Interix licensed the NT source to take advange of the lowest level system calls, so it's not running on top of Win32 like Cygnus.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft bought Safeway Systems (makers of Interix) and integrated it into Windows 2000.

Furthermore, I have a rather nice POSIX API that runs on my Windows NT 4 box. Interix is fairly tight POSIX API that runs on top of the NT Kernel. It includes GCC, a TCSHell, and most of the common Unix tools. I can build and run X clients on my NT box now, and display them anywhere. Interix is also Posix compliant, not just a mostly-compliant clone like Linux. (GNU people rarely comply with standards, they embrace and extend standards, like Microsoft)

Perhaps you would call them both Linux, but I wouldn't; were somebody (perhaps Microsoft, to squelch irrelevant "you can't do that, the source isn't available" arguments) to implement a full-blown Windows environment atop a Linux kernel, without providing a userland that looks anything like that of a Linux distribution, I wouldn't call the resulting system "Linux", because it wouldn't feel like Linux, either to a programmer or to a user - I'd call the kernel a Linux kernel, but that's it.

Yeah, perhaps you could then add a Linux userland atop it - that'd be the moral equivalent of Interix, which provides an environment with a UNIX API atop the NT kernel. Once you added the Linux userland, I'd be willing to call the resulting system a Linux system (just as an NT system with Interix is still an NT system)...

...but that's not solely because it has a Linux kernel; it includes all the other code that makes a Linux system look like a Linux system.

Similarly, a FreeBSD userland atop a Linux kernel wouldn't be a Linux system to me unless the Linux userland was present as well.

Of course, in some cases the userlands would collide - would the FreeBSD-and-Linux userlands atop a Linux kernel have, say, a FreeBSD-style or a Linux SV-style or a Linux BSD-style "init"? Were the system to present both flavors of userland where it was possible to do so, but chose one particular flavor of userland for the stuff where it wasn't, if that was a Linux flavor, I'd call the system "Linux with an XXX compatibility package", and if that was a FreeBSD flavor (or an NT flavor), I'd call it "a hybrid, neither fish nor fowl".

There's already a Posix layer for Windows (NT). It's not free, and it's not from Microsoft. (they have a crippled Posix subsystem by default).

Interix

if you were implementing UNIX on top of NT (you can do that too, but it's messy).

Actually, if you look at the product architecture drawing for the Interix UNIX-on-NT product, it doesn't look messy at all. It sits right on top of the NT kernel and not on Win32.

--

Have a look at Interix , it's a replacement POSIX layer for NT or Windows 2000 that gives you everything that Linux wishes it was, POSIX-wise (Interix is POSIX branded, so putting it on an box makes the machine legally more of a UNIX system than Linux ever could.

Cygnus is just a kludge that sits on top of the Win32 API. Interix provides a real compliant POSIX API that runs BESIDE the Win32 API and talks directly to the NT Kernel.

If you don't know the different, just go off and download Cygnus. It's all ya need, kid.