Slashdot Mirror
Unix To Beef Up Longhorn
An anonymous reader writes "VNUnet has a story about Longhorn having the ability to run unix or linux code via SFU." Microsoft's site has a lot more information about SFU itself. Regardless of ideological bent, it's an interesting piece o' technology.
Apple went to BSD.
Novell is going to Linux.
Windows...? It's the next generation. They just won't admit it.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
From the article Microsoft is set to include its Services for Unix (SFU) add-on for Windows as an integral part of the next major release of the Windows server operating system, codenamed Longhorn and expected in 2008.
Oh really? That's fantastic, especially since it's something - by the article's own timeline - that won't be here for another four years.
Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems.
Someone must have a pretty fancy crystal ball to tell us what is and isn't going to "sidelined" four years in the future.
By including SFU in Windows, Microsoft could rapidly become the biggest supplier of Unix software if Longhorn proves a success, undermining traditional Unix vendors such as Sun, HP and IBM, as well as Linux vendors' enterprise offerings.
Um, someone is forgetting about the single largest shipper of UNIX* systems in the world: Apple, which eclipses all other vendors.
In fact, Microsoft's move is aimed at two things primarily: Linux and Mac OS X, both in the server environment and on the desktop. Both OSes are making serious and impressive inroads in areas where they've never had large showings: Linux on the desktop, and Mac OS X in the datacenter. Microsoft, of course, sees this - given Gates' recent diatribes about the "dangers" of anything open source, or anything non-Microsoft - and we can leave it up to brilliant journalists to spread FUD to help hawk a product that won't ship for almost half-a-decade.
Microsoft may also release a 64bit version of SFU this year.
Oh really? That's wonderful news, considering we've already got that support with various commercial and non-commercial *NIXes and Linux for quite a while. Again, Microsoft, with the aid of journalists, pulling the normal "hey, you might be able to do X now, but in a few years, you'll be able to do it with Windows Amazing Edition even better! So don't invest in anything else, just stay with the perennial safe refuge of Microsoft!"
* Yes, yes, "UNIX-like".
I believe that the addition of Windows being able to run Linux/Unix code will not be directed at the home user market but only be available to the professional/server base giving Microsoft a comeptitive edge in the server market its losing out on by allowing them to run more popular and inherently software applications that may only be available for the Unix/Linux platform...I doubt MS had including Xbill in their next release in mind. ~JM
first microsoft gives us bullcrap statistics about how "windows outpeforms linux" and now this? does anyone else find it comical?
A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
All of MS's own software is written & tuned for the NT kernel, so switching to a different kernel would mean a rewrite of MS-SQL and so on.
Furthermore, there's nothing technically wrong with the NT kernel that would justify such a huge change. It's much easier to put Unix on Windows than visa-versa.
Well, wine doesn't have windows code in it. I'm sure it would be a lot easier for microsoft to make gtk and qt binaries run because those standards are open. I think this is a great attempt for microsoft to pull a java on the linux community. They'll have gtk.NET and qt.NET and pretty soon they won't run on linux.
Consider this:
Conclusion? Microsoft is aping Apple. Again. And, again, they will probably make a very inferior imitation of the original thing.
And, again, they will probably market it to death and succeed, making piles and piles of cash in the meantime. Nothing new under the sun. *sigh*
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
By including SFU in Windows, Microsoft could rapidly become the biggest supplier of Unix software if Longhorn proves a success
HA! It's finally happened. MS have come up with a solution to the Linux Question. Simply supply your own version of Unix called Longhorn and simply make it incompatable with any other Unix distrobution, especially linux. Question is will it work?
Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
You may rest assured that this is the stage where the 'new technologies' i.e lock-ins, will be introduced into the unix source code. They will be lovely features of course, ADT, WinFS etc, etc. But all will be tied inexorably to windows and sealed with the DMCA.
This may be the lynchpin of the whole Longhorn stratgey? Or I could just be on drugs.
May the Maths Be with you!
It consistently astounds me how Microsoft talks about what they're going to release four years from now. Apple doesn't even talk in advance about what they're going to release next week or month (the recent iMac fumble notwithstanding), let alone the fact that four years in this industry is decades on a conventional timeline.
Do you think Bill is trying to pull a Steve on us here by talking far in the future, cementing our notions of Microsoft as a gargantuan buffoon, while secretly planning to abruptly and with much fanfare unveil Longhorn on store shelves by, say, Christmas?
-b
myselfmusic
so will Mono and WINE.
Which is quite interesting. One of the first things I tend to do with a *nix install is replace the provided utilities with GNU versions. I usually prefer the GNU version. I suspect anything coming from SCO's code base is a down-grade.
From another angle - expect this to be fertile ground for FUD. I've always found it amusing how much Microsoft likes to claim the GPL is dangerous while providing a product (SFU) full of GPL'd utilities. It seems they're taking steps to correct this oversight. And I expect MS' marketing department already have statements prepared on how incompatible GPL code was with a commercial product and what a chore (and expense) it was ripping all that code out.
I know you're making a point here, but it's pretty rare for the most part to take a random package off the net and have ./configure; make all install; work at all. I don't know how many packages have had little bugs that cause compile problems in FreeBSD or OSX or any other non-Linux system that wasn't properly tested.
"Unit shipments"? How can you possibly compare marketshare by comparing units of Apple sold vs units of Linux distros sold. I doubt but maybe 10% of the readers here running linux have purchased their operating systems.
A more valid comparison (of desktop usage at least) would be OS citations from web browsers. I don't know if Netcraft or someone would have that info, though...
and MacOS X ...
...
(sure, with recompilation and stuff, but a lot less work than developing a cross-platform application is these days)
Whether you'll be able to directly run an x86-64 ELF binary (linux or bsd type) on Longhorn will be the interesting part - if you can, then for a lot of things, why bother with a dedicated Windows port. Linux will have more market share in 2008 than it does now, and might be worth supporting for even more companies
The ability to run Windows applications natively was one of the reasons that OS/2 never really took off - native application development was eschewed in favour of cross-platform development for Windows. It would be ironic indeed if this was to turn around and bite Microsoft one day.
"SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software."
cue sound of one hand slapping forehead...
The funny part is that they seem to think that this little problem will be fixed in four years. Interesting...
... they must have violated SCO's IP rights
If you read between the lines this is actually the most insightful point in the comments so far.
If one stops to consider Microsoft's business model it becomes apparent that SFU is a way for Microsoft to attempt to gain IP rights to POSIX compliance. In the beginning there will be incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Microsoft will collaborate with organizations to iron out the incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Through merit of collaboration Microsoft will attempt to patent and copyright their contributions and, with every legal filing, will make a grab for any related material that is possible. The Linux industry, not wanting to be perceived as deliberately trying to undermine Windows, will have to collaborate with the Windows movement. Since Microsoft can afford to patent the contributions and refinements they will eventually nibble away at the GPL.
Essentially Microsoft is hoping to do to Linux what Linux did to UNIX. Microsoft is hoping to spend enough time to rewrite the code, subroutine by subroutine, in the name of compatibility, so that they can divest Linux from GPL. When they have properly divested the system from GPL over the course of five to ten years then they will once again assume market share _AND_ be able to legally make SCO-like IP claims on *NIX systems.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Way, way back, when most people that ran MS OSes actually ran the ugly 16-bit shell called Windows For Workgroups 3.11, Windows NT already had smth called "the POSIX subsystem". It was there more or less since day one of Windows NT designs, engineered to work similarly to the "win32" subsystem, and there was even a brief period of time when MS marketed its OS as "the first fully POSIX-compatible OS", due to this POSIX subsystem. Their hope, apparently, was the same as today - that UNIX-oriented programmers from the scientific and industrial backgrounds will switch to NT. However, they failed to support and upgrade the POSIX subsystem, and, given the failed expectations of attracting customers to buying NT for that subsystem (the majority were migrating from win16), they decided to dump it altogether for a while. Back then it served just another feature on the feature list to push Windows NT to as many OEMs on one hand and programmers on the other hand as possible. Those who did come because ofthe POSIX compatibility, were frustrated but already locked in.
VKh
Yeah but will it finaly have POSIX style processes? Not being able to properly fork stuff pisses me off to no end.
Don't forget that MS once had a Unix OS called Xenix. Then David Cutler talked them into a VMS like architecture...
As Henry Spencer put it "Those who do not understand Unix are condemed to reinvent it, poorly".
We may be seeing the wheel coming around full circle..
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Just to be clear, SFU is available today for Win2K, XP and I think 2003 as a free add-on. They're working on SFU for 64bit Windows right now. The only difference with Longhorn and SFU is that it will be part of the default install media and not a separate download.
And Apache is a bad example since it runs on Windows without the need of SFU.
Also, SFU is not meant so much to sideline Solaris as it does not have the reliability features that Solaris has. SFU is most definitely -targetted- at Linux server admins. Not saying what you state about it actually wrong, only that it is not the intent.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Surely by now everybody would have dumped Unix for NT. That's what billy boy promised years ago.
Why wait four years for a castrated unix wannabe when you can get the real thing right now?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...because NOTHING prevents GNU-licensed software from being sold/distributed with commercial software AS LONG AS YOU INCLUDE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE CODE of the app in question. I cannot see why it couldn't even be on the same physical CD as closed software. The REAL reason SFU is not shipped with Windows is probalby for other reasons:
* Political reasons: MS cannot rail against the GNU license if they bundle GNU software with its OS. It would be too damaging to the argument that GNU is "dangerous and infectious" to commercial software projects if they successfully demonstrated GNU legally co-mingling with closed software. Bundling SFU and giving it a high profile at this point--when it is still laden with GNU software and MS's own platform is a creaking, worm-infested hulk with a screen-door security policy--would be tantamount to admitting defeat.
* Marketing reasons: They would have to fight the perception that their own software is so inferior to alternatives that they themselves will not use it. An important sales and marketing rule is to "eat your own dogfood"--doing otherwise makes the job tough for the sales force. If using the alternative cannot be avoided then MS wants to add as LITTLE value as possible by making it a separate but free package with only a little, narrowly targeted marketing. This strategy has given SFU the image of an obscure, "skunkworks" project--just as MS intends.
* Legal reasons: The problem isn't with distribution itself. The likely problem is that to bundle/integrate SFU with the OS the way MS WANTS to "embrace" it would require "extending" some of that GNU software. Microsoft is never content with merely putting the software on the CD--it wants to fuse it with the OS a la IE. THAT is where the GPL would get in the way, because MS depends heavily on keeping its extensions to open standards and systems proprietary--something the GPL forbids.
Thus we have to wait until Longhorn for "integrated SFU". MS needs the time to re-engineer the GPL components in such a way that it is "SCO approved" and extendable without concern for openness. Furthermore, Longhorn is supposed to be a quantum leap from the status quo--a major re-work. It represents a shift akin to moving from DOS to Win 3.x or Win 3.x to Win95. In this scenario, integrated SFU becomes just one of a large number of significant advancements, rather than sticking out like a sore thumb by being introduced at a time when MS is fighting with current Win32 shortcomings.
The result us that SFU can be credibly marketed as intended--a way to introduce Windows into a "legacy" UNIX environment with the prospect of eventual takeover.
SFU 3.5 is available _today_, as a free download, no less. I've been using SFU since the pre-3.0 betas. It is wonderful. The announcement here seems to be that SFU will actually get rolled into some longhorn skus, so you wont even have to download the free installer. That means people can expect an SFU environment as part of a given windows install in a few years.
;)
SFU is cool technology - you get real NFS client and server, a real UNIX cmdline environment (much better than cygwin, IMO), full gcc, libraries, tcsh, even x11 libs (but no local xserver). I find that having a tcsh SFU window hanging around on my desktop significantly helps my development process (foreach/grep/find/sed does wonders for search-n-replace on a large code base)
I'm not sure really what the point of your post was, but it mostly revolves around bitching at MS and journalists about a announcing a product plan. You seem to focus on how longhorn wont be here for a while. The specific technology in question, SFU, is here today, and you can use it now if you want to.
Not that that should stop you from randomly complaining about MS though. This is slashdot afer all
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
So, let me get this straight: in four years, we'll be able to jump on the Windows upgrade treadmill and run Linux code on servers costing thousands of dollars in Microsoft licensing fees, requiring at least 1Gbyte of RAM, and still be forced to deal with Microsoft's system admin tools. And why would I want to do that?
The problem with Windows isn't the lack of features, it is that it already has far too many. Adding Linux into the mix makes the problem with Windows worse, not better.
in trying to be everyones' operating system by integrating UNIX/Linux. Couldn't that lead to more insecurity? the only reason i think is that while the architecture might be modular, M$ love to bury everything into a nicely integrated system (no one every thought the browser would make sense as part of the OS until M$ said so).
i am not an expert, but won't Windows be a bit more secure if IE wasn't so tightly integrated? now i don't thing Linux or Macs would have the same security concerns simply because very few things which are not critical to the Kernel will get in there. Wine has been around for a bit and even if it was more stable, i didn't see it ever getting into the kernel. that would just be another thing to worry about.
an OS is a complex piece of software as it is, but to try to do everything and be everything, that is asking for trouble. it is like Java (no flam war intended), Java for a bit wanted to be everyone's programming language (after it got out of the lab). that makes it so bloated and complex that i am sure there are a ton of duplicate classes or classes that are slightly similar which can lead to confusion and a maintenance nightmare.
SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
Well, I'm bewildered by this approach. Does MS's legal team completely have their heads up their ass in terms of legal reality, or are they just willing to pay to commercially license software just for the potential value as a FUD tool? Can't distribute the GNU C compiler with commercial software? Apple must be dead in the water!
May we never see th
the only reason any admin with a clue would welcome this is to make migration to OSS smoother and faster, allowing you to keep those old NT systems available while you move. why on earth you'd want to have NT as your OS but run everything under a unix emulation shell is beyond me.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO."
Since when can't open source software be shipped side by side with commercial software?
What Microsoft really means is that they don't want the fact that they use gpl'd software becoming very public.