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

What's your point?

[Blackknight]

The BSD license allows anybody to do this.

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:What's your point?

[Horny Smurf]

GPL, BSD, it doesn't matter. Services For Unix includes the gcc compiler (and source code!). MS isn't selling the command-line tools. The source code is out there, and anyone that interesetd in Unix knows where to find it and how to compile it.

They're selling a posix-compatability layer, they're own (well, interix) code that provides full posix compatability in NT/2k/xp. The command-line tools is just icing on the cake.

Re:What's your point?

[hey!]

Of course it's not illegal.

It's just another example of how MS's PR is hypocritical. Open source is supposed to be the end of freedom, democracy and capitalism. But we knew that MS PR was hypocritical; it's hardly unique in that regard.

I guess from a PR perspective it's newsorthy as a counter to MS claims. From a technical perspective, of course they used BSD'd code to create Unix services. That's how anybody with any common sense would do it, both from the point of view of effort and from the point of view of compatibility.

Finally, a secure Microsoft product!

[duffbeer703]

Ra!

Thanks, Theo!

The difference between BSD and GPL licensing

[martinde]

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.

Re:Wooo

[Creepy Crawler]

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

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 /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.

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?

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?

Cywin is better

[ozzee]

With cygwin you get true UNIX compatability and hundreds of unilities including ssh and X terminal sessions.

... better still, it does not cost $99.

sweet!

[holzp]

does this mean Microsoft is dying?

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!)