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.
Interesting. No, wait...that other thing. Tedious.
Anybody else first read that as STFU? Seems oddly appropriate somehow.
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".
longhorn:~# cd / er, no, I mean, cd \ ... I mean ... ohsodit
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
http://www.cygwin.com
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
Finally, I can run my linux apps in a secure enviorment.
This Shut the Fuck Up technology sounds interesting. Can I use it on an airplane or bus when people around me too loud?
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Hate to break it to yall, but there have been some VERY nice UNIX(tm) layers for Windows since NT 4.0 The same people that made Exceed X11 for Windows also made a kernel add-in with full POSIX support. All the UNIX goddies where there and it even seemed to increase stability. Microsoft purchased the company after they failed to get their software to run well on Windows 2k (they ran out of money and couldn't afford to redevlope). If they get this stuff working again in Longhorn, I'll be first in line to buy it when its released.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"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."
All the simplicity of Unix.
All the stability of Windows.
Didn't somebody at Microsoft think to reverse things? They'd be furthur ahead to try to fix what they have before adding what everybody else has.
This is interesting.
For a while now I have used some OSS-community applications on my Windows 2000 Office desktop by running binaries compiled under the Cygwin Linux environment on Windows.
the concept of having a Linux application which could be compiled under Windows from the same codebase (subject to dependencies and X-server requirements being met) may be very appealing to the Opensource groups who have been issuing software tor Mac OSX by this method for some time.
I also wonder if this is intended to give Windows more access to certain Scientific/Media computing markets which are dominated by *nix systems (industrial renderfarms, for instance). Either way, I can only see this as a good thing.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
> 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.
Where's that clue-stick of mine? I feel the need to beat someone over the head with it.
"So, how did you compile KDE on Windows?"
"SFU, noob!"
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
And you can tell they don't want to admit it because it's named Windows Services for UNIX. UNIX Services for Windows is more correct, but they want you to believe that Windows is empowering UNIX instead of the other way around.
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.
Right now Interix is based on an enhanced POSIX subsystem. It's outside of Win32 and Interix applications are only indirectly subject to the "features" of the Win32 subsystem.
Jason Zions, a solutions architect at Microsoft, said there are development versions of SFU that enable a single process to run code both from Windows and Unix libraries. Currently this feature, which would dramatically ease integration tasks, is not available in SFU.
This would almost certainly require much more closer integration of the Interix and Win32 subsystems. Oh my ears and whiskers, this can't be good.
There is valid historical reasons for this. The first versions of SFU contained an NFS and NIS server so that UNIX clients could connect to an NT Server. Only later were "Unix Services" added to the product.
"first microsoft gives us bullcrap statistics about how "windows outpeforms linux" and now this? does anyone else find it comical?"
No. This smells more of "make it easier to migrate if you're using *Nix" than "we'll work faster with their stuff". Comical is the use of the acronymn SFU for the services for Unix.
"Derp de derp."
And you can tell they don't want to admit it because it's named Windows Services for UNIX. UNIX Services for Windows is more correct, but they want you to believe that Windows is empowering UNIX instead of the other way around.
It's true, they market the thing for migrating from UNIX to Windows but I've only ever used it to migrate from Windows to UNIX.
Someone must have a pretty fancy crystal ball to tell us what is and isn't going to "sidelined" four years in the future.
No kidding. I know what Microsoft is thinking on this one, and I think that four years is probably too late. It simply comes down to offering a low cost migration path from UNIX. Note that this only affects the server though.
I don't think that it will sideline different Linux vendors, though it most certainly will continue to sideline Sun, if they are still around. Of course Sun is effectively sidelined at the moment, so....
Microsoft's hope here is that they can be the vendor that runs successful UNIX server software and also supports Windows desktops exclusively. It is also aimed at preventing customers from switching to Linux just because they want to run an Apache server.
Of course in 4 years, the computing landscape could be very different than it is now. I suspect that we will be in the middle of a huge conflict the likes of which the industry has never seen. I don't think that most analysts or most managers at MS count on it being as intense as it will.
When I left MS, the prevailing view was that OSS was a pipe dream which could not work in the real world (completely ignoring the success of Apache, BIND, Sendmail, GCC, etc). I don't think that they are conscious of how their pricing model effectively eliminates them from certain markets, such as the ISP market either.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
GNU software has been shipped with commertal software for a very long time and is still done today.
What you can't do is use open source code in a product that will be shipped binary only.
So far so good... excepting spelling, of course
If the commertal parts of SFU contain open source code then Microsoft can't ship.
I think you're confused. SFU, until the most recent version, was a commercial product that MS sold for many years, with GPL code included. They have always given access to the GPL code, and included it in a commercial product. Remember, binary-only and commercial are not the same thing.
However this begs the question why did Microsoft use GCC and not Microsoft C++?
Hmmm?
Because Microsoft C++ doesn't have any need for the GCC extensions and other factors that would complicate MS C++ while only adding minor benefits. Additionally, SFU was not originally developed by Microsoft. Using GCC makes porting Unix applications easier, since most of the applications being ported were originally developed under GCC. The idea is that you could do very little work to get an application running under Interix (now SFU), and then eventually spend the extra time writing the application as a native Windows app. The article also points out that they may be working on a way to allow Windows and Unix code to work together (which they can't do currently outside of some external communication system), which would most likely be done under MS C++, especially given the increased standards-compliance of MS C++ over the last couple of releases (though, again, they may have to add some GNU extensions).
Maybe it has something to do with the commertal product being absolut garbage.
That's just the vodka you've been drinking.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Why don't they just name it Functional Unix Distribution and get the whole acronym thing out in the open.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.