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.
This proves that BSD is dying, right? ;)
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.
>>>Administrator ability to log in as another user, without their password, using their environment.
/winnt/etc that lets you see, a list of txt configs that control the system? You could back up the configs and know you have a hardcopy of the conf's. Once you're done editing these files, you could re-run the sync program and have it re-populate the registry.
Nope. That one is intentionally NOT in there. Go have a look at OpenVMS, the software from yesteryear that MS built NT. There was supposed to be a form of audit logs that you must either reset their password OR take Control Rights of. Either way, the user is tipped off that admin/root was playing in their acct.
>>>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).
It's not that hard. Check the permissions of the local device/directory is. Then control who has access to the share. It's no harder than user/group/everybody along with the NSA patches on Linux.
>>>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).
Simply done with logon scripts, as the AC said. He IS right, you know..
And if you're going to get pissed off at MS, at least do so with the right reasons. First, there's no way to configure a server decently over a modem line. MS already created edit.com, which is a usable editor. Why not have a SYNC program in
Next bitch is about MS not patching critical software. Here at my work, we were hit with 2 nasty viruses recently. If you say that we should have had them patched you're wrong. The patches themselves have "added functionality" which we could not install on our clients until we determined they were OK to do so. Essentially, a patch is SUPPOSED to fix a wrong, not add extra crap.
Third, is I cannot log in to multiple accounts at once. Exapmle: I can log into my user on my Linux box, and (since I'm in wheel) su to root to get certain root-only things done. With su/sudo/kdesu/gsu, correct attributes with each user are applied properly. In windows, there is no way I can do this (I know xp has it, but It's not a server os). Some of you might say, "Use the RunAs service" (hold down left-shift and left click on program, or called from command line). It doesnt propigate environment varibles correctly, so many programs wont install/run. Heck, even I can run XWindows stuff as multiple users! Why cant windows?
What's the variable you use to test if the user logging in is a member of a specific group?
I have many reasons to be pissed at MS. The ones listed are the least of them.
But the real question is: Will the next Windows CD come with mp3s and stickers?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
With cygwin you get true UNIX compatability and hundreds of unilities including ssh and X terminal sessions.
I do know how to use them. Don't be so presumptuous Mr. Smartypants. I'm very aware of how to run a login script that shells out to DOS and runs NET USE. Kind of primitive don't you think?
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
Oh yeah, I forgot.
They're a company, so it makes them EVIL.
I'd say they're a monopoly, but Linux is coming ahead quite fast. Linux is easily been usable... Choice. Isnt that what unmakes a monopoly?
Anyways, I have solid facts why I dont like windows stuff on my servers, not knee-jerk reactions that fail scrutiny. After all, I have to answer to my boss if ol' MS marketing squadron comes into town, and Im invited to those "meetings".
does this mean Microsoft is dying?
Why use DOS ? Haven't you heard of the Windows Script Host ?
There's an example on mapping a drive here.
That doesn't exactly satisfy the easy requirement does it?
/mydir; (pardon my Netware psudocode).
That's a lot of work (I know it's not REALLY that much work, but mapping drives for users in a multi-user environment is one of the things an NOS should do without any work) to map a drive.
You need to have a VB programmer on staff to map drives?
Yes, obviously anyone can learn a bit of VB. I'm quite good with it myself but give me a break.
In an NOS you should be able to do something as simple as:
if memberof mygroup map j:
Without having to spawn an application to do it.
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
Who said anything about *nix?
Don't make asumptions. It makes you look quite ignorant yourself.
I've been managing MS OS's (among others) in a corporate environment since 1984.
Base functions of a network operating system:
File and Print sharing.
This should not require special software or programming.
1984? sure.. I believe you. Considering Microsoft didn't release a NOS till 1993. Windows 3.0 was released in 1990.
Guess you never look at the Resource kits. If you have then you would have noticed a little tool called IfMember.exe that does exactly what you are complaining about.
As for the base function of a NOS, yes - file & print sharing is very important. But just as important is providing the extra functionality that makes it worth the while (such as security, DHCP & DNS (once MS jumped on the TCP/IP bandwagon), security, and, yes, even WINS)
OK - who stole my duct tape?
And Yes, you were probably running Novell Netware on MS-DOS 2.x
You are forgiven.
OK - who stole my duct tape?
I didn't say MS NOS's since 1984, I said MS OS's... as I see you corrected yourself in your next post.
And it was indeed Netware/DOS 2.0 and SYSIII and later SYSV on several platforms.
I do look at the resource kits. Using IfMember.exe means the login script is shelling out to DOS (yes it's still DOS) to find group membership then shelling out again to run NET USE.
And it does that for every instance of IfMember and NET that gets run in the script.
Let's not even talk about native TCP/IP under Windows circ:1993.
Your login script is running in a cmd window anyway, so it's not shelling out anywhere. It's executing command line executables to do so. For someone who claims to have managed MS OS's for so long you don't actually know much about doing it.
...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 you have a common set of stuff ALL users need in their login script, simply call that script at the end of their group login script.
Simple no?
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
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
So what exactly was your job function at SCO from 1984-1989? *
I am interested since it was actually you who brought up the usability of any NOS for basic network services. And since you mentioned shells earlier, I would assume you meant *NIX. DOS does not launch a new shell everytime you add a command like NET USE, etc., as mentioned elsewhere in this thread by TheRealSlimShady (which is correct).
I do half-terabyte network backups over gigabit from 50 remote machines a night with batch files and shell scripts. These machines range from Linux, OpenBSD, Mac, Win2K, NT4, WinXP, Win98, Solaris, routers, firewalls, printers, etc.
No special software or programming required my shiny metal ass. You seem to assume that these machines are all either:
a) inherently the same architecture, platform or OS; or
b) managed by a top level heirarchy or centralized security model. Workgroups (for lack of a better term) have no place in a large environment where security and manageability are a requirement. I can make all those above mentioned systems see and share and print til the paper runs out. But I never said it would be easy.
* I will assume for everyone's benefit that this is before they became "evil" so this argument does not dissolve into another "Six Degrees To SCO" boardgame.
Yes, long before they became evil and were actually producing software. I created their Inventory Control and Software QA systems.
...and of course DOS doesn't spawn a new shell when you run NET USE. As I said: the LOGIN SCRIPT spawns a new DOS shell every time you run NET USE.
Nowhere in my OP did I compare Windows to any other OS, everyone just assumed I was MS bashing and got their panties in a bunch. Typical for MS zelots.
I was talking about some simple and obvious things that Windows lacks.
Is it time for a reading comprehension class?
...and it opens a new cmd window for every instance of net use just like I said.
So what's your point other than agreeing with me and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about at the same time?
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.
1) they aren't all rabid revolutionaries. A lot of folks just want to get things done. Linux is a pragmatist if there ever was one.
2) They all don't follow RMS. Even many of the revolutionaries have wildly divergent views.
It's not so much as Microsoft working with BSD community as it sees a good thing when it sees it. I have never heard of a MS code drop to BSD, they are not advertising the inclusion of code (if they were, why would you need strings to find this out). They are profiting from using BSD source, but BSD isn't profiting from it. I hardly think this is "working with" the community. Linux people would see this as stealing and accounts for some of the zealotry of the Linux anti-BSD trolls. Most BSD folks just see it as "we released this with knowledge that this was a possibility, but thats what its there for, to be used". As much as I think people should contribute back, I'm more in the latter camp.
I hate Linux trolls (I'm more of a FreeBSD guy) but BSD trolls don't help much either.
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?
Because you're totally wrong. It doesn't open a new window for every instance of net use, unless you're doing something daft like "start net use". The "net" command is a win32 command line tool that executes in the same cmd environment as the login script. Seriously, if you're opening a new command prompt every time you execute the net command, you're doing something wrong.
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.
yes it's still DOS
No it isn't. It's a 32-bit command interpreter, not DOS. It looks like DOS, and behaves in a similar fashion, but it ain't DOS.
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.
I'm a Linux user, but I harbor no enmity toward BSD. I rarely hear other Linux users mouth off againt BSD either.
However, when reading BSD-oriented articles, I frequently see BSD users make statements like yours against Linux. What does the BSD community have against Linux?
Possibilities that come to mind:
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.