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."

Comments

Re:What's your point?

[DjReagan]

The point is that Microsoft claimed they were buying a SCO license so they could use it for their "Services for Unix", not as a way of bankrolling SCO's efforts to FUD linux.

This shows that the Services for Unix aren't derived from SCO sources, and therefore MS lied.

Or something.

Re:Wooo

[ivanmarsh]

Other simple things sorely lacking in MS servers:

Administrator ability to log in as another user, without their password, using their environment.

Ability to easily assign a printer or share you've set up as administrator to all other users of the machine/domain... and don't even mention group policies (what a cluster fuck).

Ability to easily assign drive mappings/printers dependant on what groups a users belongs to (again don't EVEN say you can do thit with group policies).

Windows servers were obviously not designed from the standpoint of an administrator setting resources up for users.

Re:What's your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

err, what's YOUR point? We know that the BSD license allows this.

I think the more interesting thing is, Microsoft used a free software product to create one if its products. and that's not even all that interesting since they've been doing it for a long time (along with lots of other companies).

A question though, is Microsoft compliant with the license? do they include the copyright notice in source and binary forms of the program:

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright

* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the

* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Re:This proves it...

[josepha48]

If MS owns 90% of the desktop market share or roughly there abouts, and they include BSD code in their OS, then how can BSD be dying??? Its not dying its being integrated into Microsoft code. It will never die now, it will forever go on as part os MS.

This is why MS hates the Linux, because of the GPL. If MS were to be caught integrating Linux code into MS then they would be violating the GPL. With the BSD license they don't have to worry, they just keep the License in the file. That's why SCO also hates the BPL, beacuse they can't just integrate Linux code into SCO. Hmm but they arlready did that didn't they?

Re:Cywin is better

[Deagol]

I compared these two along time ago, along with a similar toolkit (U/WIN) written by David Korn (author of the Korn shell). I was of the opinion that the Cygwin version ranked last. I liked the one MS ended up buying -- but not enough to pay money for it.

I think I was impressed with the suite's ability to deal with hard links and case under Windows (which Cygwin didn't). I know NTFS can deal with these, but none of the MS-provided tools can.

Off topic: Wasn't it called something before Interix? I think i had "NT" in name, but they changed it due to MS's "NT" trademark pressure.

So?

[El]

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!)

Re:This proves it...

[Stephen Samuel]

Did your grandfather fall into a vat at the hot dog factory?

No, He went down with his ship... and (presumably) was eaten by some fishes
(who were eaten by some fishes
and swallowed by a whale
[[ for those of you who remember 'The Point']])