Windows Services For Unix Now Free Of Charge

pole writes "Version 3.5 of Services for Unix will be free. Previously, it was $99. This article at Information Week has the details. It contains an NFS client and server in addition to POSIX libraries and utilities including pthreads. Aside from the NFS utilities, how does the environment compare to Cygwin?" An anonymous reader adds links to coverage at News.com and at geek.com, writing "The reviews for these tools have been highly favorable. It looks like the next volley has been fired in the struggle between Windows and Linux."

Comments

so lets make this simple

[digitalsushi]

Let's make this simple for simple people like me. Does this mean in a week I can go to Microsoft's website, download a .exe file, run it, and be able to mount NFS partitions off my linux file server? I could ditch samba? Yes no?

Re:so lets make this simple

[dtperik]

I was thinking the same thing. Does anyone know if the Windows NFS client works well enough that "straightforward" file access from Windows to Linux will be available? This could be a boon to even more Linux server installations.

Re:so lets make this simple

[Sexy Bern]

My experience of SFU was that it was much more reliable than Hummingbird's implementation of NFS client.

I really can't remember any glitches using it for 2+ years against Solaris 2.6 boxes.

Re:so lets make this simple

[digitalsushi]

ah but i use linux because it is simple. hard to learn, simple to use. i quite find windows simple to learn, hard to use, and i fancy the elegance of plain text everything that i get with my linux server.

Re:so lets make this simple

[Laur]

Sure, if you're running Windows Server 2000/2003. AFAIK, it's a server-only service/application.

Look again.

Operating System:
Microsoft Windows NT(R) Workstation 4.0, Windows NT Server 4.0 with Service Pack 6a or later, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP Professional, or Windows Server 2003

Re:so lets make this simple

[Baudhuin]

By way of some background:

The NFS client as of 3.0 is an improvement over the prior version in that it transparently conveys perms and ownership (according to whatever mapping has been established). It has support for a /net sort of mapping within the Interix/POSIX subsystem, which is nice but fairly slow (though I note that this was particularly apparent to me because I was working remotely over DSL; I suspect there was a fair amount of roundtripping).

In general, however, I think that NFS client access by way of the Win32 subsystem (i.e., not in the Interix POSIX subsystem) is pretty fast, though you might lose some of the perms transparency and there is no /net and it might not handle symlinks nicely. I remember benchmarking a version of the software prior to it being integrated in SFU, and it was about 3x faster than Samba in a LAN setting. [Kind of a an informal metrics: I was compiling a large project with network-based sources.]

It will be interesting to see if the performance within the POSIX has improved with the new version (3.5).

Re:so lets make this simple

[Syberghost]

My experience of SFU was that it was much more reliable than Hummingbird's implementation of NFS client.

Almost anything is more reliable than Hummingbird's NFS.

Viewing the file in hex and yelling it out across the room to somebody else who types it back in is more reliable than Hummingbird's NFS.

Microsoft motives?

[glinden]

Can you say, "embrace and extend?"

Re:Microsoft motives?

[NightSpots]

If Microsoft provides a client for Unix filesystems, they get "embrace and extend" comments.

If Microsoft doesn't, they get the "refusing to support open standards" comments.

What do you want them to do? Do you want them to attempt to work with Unix, or do you want them to completely ignore the fact that Unix exists?

Re:Microsoft motives?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

What do you want them to do?

Die, dissipate, dissolve, terminate, and ceace function.

Re:Microsoft motives?

[Chris Mattern]

What do you want them to do?

I've got a suggestion, but this is a family forum.

Chris Mattern

Thank you Microsoft

[Mongo222]

What a fantastic set of tools for people who are migrating thier windows boxes to a Linux/Unix envirornment. Glad they finally saw the light of day and are working to join us.

Re:Thank you Microsoft

[Bad Boy Marty]

Actually, in spite of comments below, I consider this an acquiescence on Microsoft's part that their customers really do want many of the features present in Unix-like systems that are not found in Windows systems. Naturally, Microsoft would never admit this, but I find it difficult to interpret any other way.

My biggest complaint about Microsoft products has always been the inherent insecurity of blindly executing code (whether it be macros in a spreadsheet, or an actual executable in an email message). But this product addresses a lot of my 2nd biggest complaint about them: lack of scriptability (i.e., hands-off operation).

The sad thing is, most Windows users have absolutely no concept of how useful this is -- until they are forced to use a Unix-like system. Then, when they see how powerful it can be, and go back to their Windows systems, they claim "Oh, Windows doesn't need that: all the apps just do the right thing when I drag&drop."

So sad....

bass ackwards

[Doc Ruby]

It's really "unix services" for "Windows". They can't even get the name right - what else did they screw up at the forge of Mordor?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

how it compares

[larry bagina]

I've not used cygwin, but I have used the SFU demo.

They include gcc, but most of the other utilities are from OpenBSD or other non-GPL sources (there are about 40 different licenses included). ActiveState perl is also included, though you can get that free anyhow.

This could backfire on MS

[SkArcher]

The idea is obviously to encourage migration from Unix to Windows, but it can just as easily be used to encourage migration in the other direction.

It is to be hoped that such opportunities are taken up by people wishing to get the out of MS lock in in a gradual manner.

Re:This could backfire on MS

[nate1138]

Regardless of whether or not it backfires, it _does_ help interoperability, and that is a Good Thing no matter how you look at it. Almost nobody is exclusively Unix or MS, nor should they necessarily be.

The only bitch I will have is if this is like other Microsoft attempts at "interoperability" where they break shit. Think kerberos, java, etc.

This is actually very good!

[The One KEA]

Something like this happen could mean that Microsoft is starting to have a slight change of heart about the presence of Linux/UNIX. Having this available for free could be great boon to people who have to run Linux alongside M$ - this ranks right up there with Samba, IMO.

Especially interesting is the addition of the pthread library to the Posix API package.

Good business decision

[Dark Paladin]

This is probably a good thing for Microsoft: make it easier to run Unix (aka Posix) apps on their systems. Odds are, they walked into too many meetings like this:

Salesman: So, that's how much switching to Microsoft Server will cost.

IT Guy: Yeah, but then there's the development costs of porting over our Unix and Linux stuff over.

Salesman: Who needs it! We've got IIS!

IT Guy: Yeah, but we developed our own apps or used some open source stuff -

Salesman: Agggghhh! We speak not its name!

IT Guy: Um, right. Anyway, now we'd have to redevelop those for Windows. How much does that Unix thing cost on Microsoft?

So now the answer is "free". I'm not saying I like Windows servers over Unix-style boxen - but this was a good business choice for MS.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Not all so hot

[etymxris]

I guess it depends on what you use it for. But as I have to do development work in Windows, I thought I'd try it out. Searching through the million line source tree our company has took about 10 times as long with 'grep' that came with "Services for UNIX" as it did with 'grep' that came with a now ancient version of MKS. Both of these were slower that current GNU grep on a Linux box, but the difference between GNU and MKS grep is not dramatic.

The lesson stays, however. If you expect to basically start with all the power of your Linux box, you'll be sorely dissappointed, just as someone expected the ease of use of Windows coming to Linux will be sorely dissappointed.

Based upon OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft based this product upon OpenBSD: http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid=20030927090 008

Great Acronym! SFU!

[slacy]

Wow, what a great acronym, and I'm quite surprised that they seem to be actually using it externall!

Anyone who disagrees with microsoft can just SFU! I mean, install SFU from microsoft.com.

(Just in case somebody missed it, SFU = Shut the F**k Up.)

Good Old Econ 101

[stuffedmonkey]

We are really starting to see the results of constant economic pressure in Microsoft. Once a monopoly has real competition - it is forced to either *gasp* innovate or lower prices! I think in the coming years, All computer users will benefit from Linux - even if they never use it. Windows users will see lower prices and a somewhat friendlier Beast, and Mac users are already getting a ton of great open source product integreted into OS X.

Windows needs more apps

[mattkime]

This great news for those windows users out there. It will be surely provide much needed apps for this upstart operating system. Now, whenever someone says, "Windows? But what can I do with it?" you can point out that they can run their favorite unix apps.

Good, but not great

[Telastyn]

Overall, services for unix is good. It provides many of the common unix utilities, and it integrates them into the shell [even just cmd] very well. Much better, and 'cleaner' than cygwin. Cygwin has *many* more tools though, and they work 'well enough'.

In my experience, using the two together [having SFU's directory in the path before cygwin's] gives you the best of both releases.

MS finds use for their SCO license...

[PSaltyDS]

This was speculated on in an article at Groklaw, that this was the intent (aside from financing the anti-Linux FUD campaign) in M$ paying SCO for a license.

This is a good thing

[LordZardoz]

All anti MS rhetoric aside, this is a smart move for them to make. By making support for POSIX api's freely available, it allows someone to port a unix type app over with a re-compile and perhaps some changes to the make file.

People like to roast MS for not adhering to standards, among other things. This partly answers that.

Of course, this does not make MS a "Good Corporate Citizen" any more then donating money to a homeless shelter makes a tobbaco company a "Good Corporate Citizen". But it does show that once in a while, even bad people can do good things, even if the motives are questionable.

And I have no doubt that Microsofts motives will be questioned here.

END COMMUNICATION

Yeah, MS marketing director is clever indeed...

[plj]

..as he mentions that "very few of our customers are going to have a pure Unix or pure Windows environment".

Previously, I used to think that at least half of the MS customers or so would have a pure Unix environment. Thanks for enlightening me, Dennis!

Freedom?

[condition-label-red]

how does the environment compare to Cygwin?

One is licensed under GPL, and the other isn't....

Re:Freedom?

[David McBride]

There's a more important architectual difference.

Cygwin is built on top of the Win32 APIs on top of the NT kernel core.

SFU is built straight on top of the core kernel; Win32 API variances (which have caused headaches for the Cygwin implementors of years) are no longer factored in.

Moreover, the core state information (such as process listings and various other things) come straight from the core. It is perfectly possible to send a SIGSTOP or a SIGKILL to Word.exe (a Win32 app) from the SFU universe and watch Word stop dead or die, respectively.

As well as NFS mounting and export capabilities, SFU also supports NIS and can do various user mappings between the Windows and Unix worlds.

Beware the default password set for some of these options.

Memo to self: no service that requires a password for security should be enabled by default with a standard initial passphrase.

Re:Freedom?

[the frizz]

I too liked the fact that SFU has more access to the Windows core. E.g., some per process stuff can be seen via ps and /proc, The cmd.exe shell executes many of the utilities. But still not enough for me to switch kick cygwin off my system. The cygwin bash shell default setup beats ksh.

Here's some features that would have excited me, but I didn't find in SFU.

• I was hoping to be able to truss(1) the native windows executeables, but I didn't have any luck with that.
• A list of file descriptors in use under /proc/PID/fd/...
• The SFU NFS client did follow symlinks when the target was on the same device, but it didn't seem to follow a symlink to another device. I tried making targets of c:\temp and \\host\share, but even though Windows Explorer could see the target directly, when Windows Explorer browses the remote NFS Network the the symlink target did not resolve. (A trace shows the NFS server returning the right target name to the SFU NFS client.)

Hmm...

[cperciva]

POSIX environment... C compiler... you know, it should be possible to get my depenguinator to work here.

I'm not sure about being able to write the filesystem image to disk, Windows might not allow that.

Re:I have had unix tools for windows for a long ti

[Bingo Foo]

one word, cwywin

Ah, yes. The Welsh-centric fork of Cygwin.

Re: got your source right here

[ubiquitin]

Interix used OpenBSD as is evidenced at deadly.org

So like 95% of it is just OpenBSD, mostly pulled from theh 3.0 release tree.

A smart move

[the_crowbar]

I hear quite a bit of complaining on Slashdot about Microsoft and their software/business practices. The complaints may have some merit, but I think a no-cost tool that helps integrate Windows and *nix is great.

Diversity is the only way to survive. If Linux (or any OS) dominates to the extent Microsoft has we all lose. I think Microsoft is starting to see that. They may be simply acting like they want interoperability, but if it makes my job (mixed *nix/windows admin) easier without costing my employer more than I am all for it.

BTW I have a copy of v3.0 that I got for the cost of shipping. Those who must admin Windows systems but enjoy the tools availble on *nix should definately check it out.

the_crowbar

UNIX isn't Microsoft's chief competitor...

[Fortunato_NC]

They need to start offering "Windows Services for Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000", because this is where a lot of their customers hopped off the upgrade bus.

C'mon, raise your hands, how many of you are still administering a pair of Windows NT 4.0 domain controllers because Active Directory was overkill for your single-site 100 employee company? I know I am.

Samba won't be popular until...

[Jahat]

it is ported to Windows. (BTW... Got this from some other post on Slashdot a long time ago)

Re:Samba won't be popular until...

[Rich0]

The irony is that there would be a demand for this. Imagine if you have a windows box that you'd like to share a directory on with more than 5 people. Workstation versions of windows are crippled, and server versions make you pay per connection. Samba would let you share it with everyone, without setting up a dedicated server.

Obviously I'd just set up a linux box - but if you made a freeware program which you could download which would allow you to share a folder with an indefinite number of users, you'd get a lot of downloads.

Does this come with an X Server?

[Rob Y.]

If this comes with a good X server for Windows, it might make it easy to set up a Linux Terminal Server in a Windows desktop shop. That might be a good way for people to get their feet wet.

Or does this thing only work on Win2k or XP Server editions?

Including giving credit to OpenBSD.

[emil]

As you can see.

how does the environment compare to Cygwin?

[sICE]

1) WSFU is faster (IO/API/...)
2) WSFU is better integrated with win32 architecture (OLE/ODBC/...)
3) WSFU make a lot of things easier than cygwin with windows

BUT, i wouldnt trade cygwin for it, note that i have both installed here. I just isolated what i needed from WSFU and was better than cygwin and added them last in my path. I dont have any preferences, but cygwin is waaay more complete, and you have the +/- the same versions of the application that runs on linux. Same config files work fine, same behaviours (which isnt the case with WSFU), etc.

For me, WSFU is just a little + to cygwin.

Re:Great Acronym! SFU!

[Dave2 Wickham]

I've already heard it as STFU...

Anyway, it's still better than the Critical Update Notification Tool.

Twist to the story

[bstadil]

There is an interesting twist to the story if you read the Spat between Novell and SCO posted yesterday.

If you look a the letter on 6/24 from Novell to SCO (partly quoted below) they disputes SCO legal rights to enter into a new agreement with Microsoft.

As voiced yesterday a lawsuit by Novell against SCO is almost certain. They are currently trying to Audit SCO's records in an effort to bring their ducks in row, and presto. Once the suit over Copyright et al is filed SCO effort to get more money will be impossible. On an aside head over to Groklaw and read about SCO's effort o hire a sales manager for their non-existant IP in Linux.

Quote

It has come to our attention that SCO may have violated these provisions. In particular, SCO reported in a recent securities filing that SCO has established a program to review existing licenses, and enter into new licenses, relating to UNIX and that this effort "resulted in the execution of two license agreements" during the quarter ended April 30, 2003. The securities filing states:

The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.

Banner ad

[nurb432]

I dont know if anyone else noticed .,but the banner ad on this article is the same annoucement and link back to microsoft for download...

MS Conversation

[glenstar]

SFU PM: Wow! We had 50,000 downloads of SFU the first day.

BillG: Great! It looks like we have another winner on our hands. People sure do want that Unix stuff. Oh, wait...

SFU PM: erm...

BillG: You're fired.

Re:No multithreading

[Temporal]

I'm confused. Are you saying that Microsoft's POSIX layer has no multithreading? Because not only does the article say otherwise, but it says right there in the writeup:

It contains ... POSIX libraries and utilities including pthreads.

I've used both

[Dunkirk]

I've used both, SFU more extensively than Cygwin, though. SFU's NFS stuff is flaky. That's just the bottom line. I would much rather export shares to Windows clients with Samba than NFS. (I suppose it doesn't help that I'm not a big fan of NFS, either, but that's just full disclosure. It's the only thing I've seen that can reliably lock up a *nix machine. Now, of course, there are circumstances where you want this, but usually not.) Also, if you want all the features of their command line, you'll have to switch your Windows machine into a case-sensitive mode. It made me nervous to change something so fundamental to Windows. Maybe they'll fix that in this upcoming version; I dunno. On the other hand, using Cygwin is nice, but it's like a big tease. Most of it works like you want. It's just that if you're used to using Linux and ALL of it's tools, you're going to hit the wall pretty quick. (I just ran into this a couple weeks ago, and I've already forgotten what it was I was wanting.)

SFU is the way to write windows code

[memex2004]

We've been using SFU 3.0 and its predecessor for 5 years now to provide our Database Engine and Tools on Windows Boxes as well as our usual Solaris, AIX, Linux, Unixware and SGI. I woudl like to think that by now I am one of the more experienced Interix developers kicking round. I have to say, It's really very good and keeps getting better. MS are moving to being Unix by stealth, SFU is a unix on the NT Microkernal and it doesnt suffer from Win32 issues. Fork works, You can delete a file thats in use (yes inodes work !!), create a new one with the same name and open that in a different process. I've seen Interix 2.0 evolve info SFU 3.0 and 3.5 and I've had MS fix bugs in the allocator part of MMAP within days and release a private patch. Somehow I think there is a little group of diehard Unix lovers in MS working to turn everything on its head the same way Apple got OSX. Anyway waffle over - Try it as a build environment it's geat. What I want to see is Wine on SFU - then All windows apps work over X - whoopee.

Add outwit to the mix

[Diomidis Spinellis]

Now that you have SFU freely available go download and install outwit. Outwit is a suite of tools based on the Unix tool design principles allowing the processing of Windows application data with sophisticated data manipulation pipelines. The outwit tools offer access to the Windows clipboard, the registry, the event log, relational databases, document properties, shell links, and the event log.

As an example, you can change all registry entries pointing to a user's home directory by running

winreg HKEY_CURRENT_USER |
sed -n 's/C:\\home/D:\\home/gp' |
winreg

A Usenix technical conference paper describes the tools and a number of applications.

#include "/dev/tty"