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? ;)
A word to the wise ...
cerskine is a troll a-count
Do da do da
cerskine is a troll a-count
Oh a do da day
Posts on slash-dot
Cuz its got no life
cerskine is a troll a-count
Oh a do da day
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?
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
Elegy For *BSD
I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.
You two can be graveyard pals!
When it comes to the subject of operating systems, most of us can agree on at least one thing, and that is the simple plain truth that *BSD is dying. But the deeper question is why? Why did *BSD fail?
Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
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. That hope is long gone, replaced by an inconsolable despair. A mournful and plaintive nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
...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
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.
BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
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.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
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
*BSD you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, *BSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.
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.
FUCKING DUH!
That sucka be dead.
Also, the FreeBSD release engineering team consists of ten to twenty individually caged chimpanzees with WebTVs that are captured, infected with rabies, and replaced promptly upon death. If no chimpanzees are available, a core team member interested in streamlining the bureaucracy is used.
Deal with it. This is the truth.
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"
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.