Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Services for Unix and OpenBSD
ubiquitin writes "If you use strings on Microsoft's Services for Unix (SFU) interoperability suite which was developed by Interex you find that it is largely composed of source from the OpenBSD 3.0 source tree according to a recent deadly.org article."
The BSD license allows anybody to do this.
Ra!
Thanks, Theo!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
MS has every right to do this with BSD licensed code. And they do with GPLed code to, but if it was GPLed code then they would have to release the source to the derivative product under the GPL.
Note that I'm not making any statements for or against either license, or for or against MS. I'm just pointing the key the difference in these popular licenses.
And they missed some of the best parts..
/bin , /sbin , /etc , /home (or /usr/home)......
1: Xwindows server
2: True INIT runlevels with windows reg-startips inserted as init scripts
3: Samba server (heh heh heh)
4: Remapping of the drive to conform with the standard of
The tools are nice, but it still feels like a half-ass effort with Microsoft. I'm still somewhat happy that they tried.
This proves that BSD is dying, right? ;)
With cygwin you get true UNIX compatability and hundreds of unilities including ssh and X terminal sessions.
I for one am really glad to see MS grabbing as much OSS code as they can for implementing the more standards compliant portions of their products, if only to see them ship more stable, secure code.
I've a lot more faith in the code they grab from the *BSD trees than in their own internally generated code and, having to run WinXX a lot (my VMWare Workstation currently has 8 open machines in it and 6 of them are WinXX: WinNT (1), Win2K(4) and WinXP(1), two are RH8), I'd rather have the peace of mind.
- Barrie
To me it's obvious that MS realizes how valuable it is to work with the BSD community. Almost makes you wonder if they would work with the Linux community if they weren't such rabid revolutionaries all following in RMS's footsteps.
scott
does this mean Microsoft is dying?
Yes, and we hope your head swells so much it explodes.
The TCP/IP stack in Windows NT was based on BSD too. The only annoying thing I find about that is that they tore it out and replaced it with a less-capable TCP/IP stack for Windows 2000 (many of the ioctl's such as set receive and send buffer size no longer work... that's progress!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Golden Rule: Don't feed the trolls, unless you want them to come back.
You two can be graveyard pals!
...warts and all. And remember what happened to ultra-secure VMS after Microsoft got their paws on it?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
See www.billparish.com for details. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If it's that slow for you, you have a problem. You should check IRC and news groups for help if needed, I'm sure it's something simple that you might have over looked. If I knew your setup, I'd be able to tell you what's causing it.
:)
Point is... If you're having these problems, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is too; otherwise it would have been fixed many years ago.
I'm even willing to bet one sysctl -w will fix it.
You'll never see the bigger threat to Microsoft interoperate with Microsoft products, by Microsoft. Funny how *BSD isn't "real" Unix. However it's given that title.
y h b t . y h l . h a n d
Now I see a lot of people here trying to bash MS because of this article...
Heres a clue for all the readers out there: Slashdot is not a site for bashing Microsoft. "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" does NOT always translate into "Microsoft is Evil" "Open source Rocks".
This is a very nice, informative article that points out >WHERE Microsoft got the technology for SFU. I for one am glad to know that technology from OpenBSD has been adopted by MS and incorporated into their OS.
Now what would be better would be to know if Interex and/or MS has given anything BACK to the *BSD community as a result of this...
I see nothing wrong with what MS has done - Part of the reason I use BSD-Licened software is because it allows just this sort of commercial adoption of the code.
/~mikeg
As you all know, Microsoft has recently paid license fees to the SCO group for Unix intellectual property in order to be legally allowed to distributed their services for Unix product. Since it is clear that this product is a derivative work of *BSD, this means that Microsoft must have decided that distribution of this work without a proper SCO license would be a legal risk. Now, no one is more protective of their own profitability than Microsoft, so you can be sure they wouldn't fork over a dime to anyone unless they absolutely had to. Therefore, anyone must accept that *BSD is clearly infringing SCO copyrights, and all *BSD users should begin negotiations with SCO for license fees immediately.
you might find some of these reports interesting
Los Binds Laborotories
Smegma University of Canada
Goa Tse Governmental Computing Center of Xia, China
As I said: the LOGIN SCRIPT spawns a new DOS shell every time you run NET USE.
Is it time for a reading comprehension class?
No, no reading comprehension for us, but how about you go read the Resource Kit.
A Windows Login Script DOES NOT spawn a new shell every time you run NET USE. It will open one Command Shell for the entire Login Script.
Pre-Active Directory, this meant only one script could be run, which in turn could call other scripts, if so desired, but they would run under one Command Shell. (Unless you specifically called command /c (or cmd /c) in the batch file.)
Now, with Active Directoy, with Group Policies (which you have already stated your opinion of), then YES, multiple scripts can be run either asynchronously or sychronously. Each of these would run in their own Command Shell.
OK - who stole my duct tape?
LOL...yeah right. MS will do whatever it takes to keep from having to deal with stuff later on. Why do you think they try to buy out competition when they're small? So they don't have to hassle with them later. SCO wanted chump change in comparison to MORE legal crap, which MS didn't need. It means nothing.
Well, MSN is clearly haemmoraging money, what with M$ closing th chat rooms and blocking off messenger to clients which don't pay a pricy licence fee. Microsoft are experts at propaganda, and this makes me wonder how deep th troubles must really run for it to show on th surface at all.
# Ding Dong, the Witch is dead... #
Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
Linux uses code stolen from *BSD => proof that open source is working and Linux and BSD are good
Microsoft uses code stolen from *BSD => Microsoft is the devil, they should be punished for stealing the hard work of the *BSD developers
Oh your poetry is *so* deep, for a pie-eating troll
But when it's time for survival you can go crawl back in your hole
With your prefabricated security devices and prefaded jeans
My home is the internet, you call this a Ghetto? Please!
Save that talk for your intranet still teeming with viruses
But hey, when in doubt you run defrag and hope you still come out on top
With all the other front-runners and hanger-ons
I don't wish you bad luck cuz i don't have to,
*BSD is the bomb that you can't step to.
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
BSD was never written for children. RTFM.
I have a BSD machine here that's been up 322 days. I've NEVER had any issues. You either: A.) Have drive issues. B.) Have other misconfiguration or hardware issues. C.) Need to buy a good book. Windows is FAR less stable than BSD and yes, I am Microsoft certified. BSD is on the top of the netcraft uptime charts. The only advantage Windows has over BSD is DirectX and a wide availability of games. I run FreeBSD on several PC's and NetBSD on sparc, sparc64 and VAX machines. I don't think it was an OS problem, it was the guy behind the keyboard that thought the MCSE cert would get him an easy ride.
Think again. It's D) He is fscking with you.
The fact that Microsoft/Interex felt it was
okay to use this code is an affirmation that
the BSD license is serving its intended purpose,
to promote the use and adoption of BSD licensed
code. It is also an affirmation of the quality
of the code if a company is willing statke it's
repution on it. I see all of this as good thing.
FreeBSD is dying.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Now, if only they'd take the *rest* of the OpenBSD source and create a windows desktop on X, they might actually be able to have a *secure* OS instead of one full of holes. :-P
After reading the rest of the thread and noticing the preponderance of "BSD is dying" trolls, I'd like to amend my comment. :-)
5. Offense at "BSD is dying" trolls
However, I'm inclined to ignore those in the same way that I ignore the GNAA first posts and "In Soviet Russia" jokes.