Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft to Stop Releasing Services for Unix

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the end-of-the-road dept.

lilrowdy18 writes "According to a recent article, Microsoft will stop releasing any new versions of Services for Unix. SFU 3.5 will continue to be supported until 2011 and will have extended support until 2014. From what the article hints at, Microsoft wants Unix interoperability integrated into the OS. Microsoft says that this integration couldn't be done with past architectures."

14 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft's answer to UNIX by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Embrace and extend! UNIX is doomed! Mwahahahahaha!

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Microsoft's answer to UNIX by alexandreracine · · Score: 2, Funny
      "From what the article hints at, Microsoft wants Unix interoperability integrated into the OS."


      I am sure this was ment to be :"WE WANT TO CONTROLL ALL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS HAHAHAHA, MONEY MONEY MONEY". Yep, more like that.
      --
      No sig for now.
    2. Re:Microsoft's answer to UNIX by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah. If Microsoft wanted to kill UNIX, all they need to do is release Visual Basic 6 for Unix.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Microsoft's answer to UNIX by Klaus+Obermeyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose that would explain why Windows NT is largely based on VMS and uses code from FreeBSD. Oh wait, it doesn't.

    4. Re:Microsoft's answer to UNIX by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...you can't even rely on any *nix system to *HAVE* a gui api...

      What you call a bug, I call a feature. I like being able to build a box without having an unnecessary GUI adding overhead and unneeded complexity. If I'm building a box that is destined to sit under the hood of some machinery and has to be 100% reliable and as fast and stable as possible why would I want to add an unnecessary GUI? The inability of Windows to be customized and have parts removed is a huge weakness, not an advantage.

      ...having a consistant gui api structure, and can reliably have a base of software on *nix (linux or bsd) systems to build from that one can build applications that will run on >90% of linux/bsd desktops, it won't take over the desktop market.

      Having the same GUI API as other distributions and UNIX like systems is not a core feature, it is an interoperability feature. Solaris, RedHat Linux, OpenBSD, MacOS X, etc. all have had consistent GUI APIs for years. Sure some of them also support other GUI APIs and they don't have the same GUI API as one another, but then again, Windows doesn't have the same GUI API as any of these others either. Complaining that a given Linux distro and an SGI machine don't have same GUI API is like complaining a given version of Windows and Amigas don't have the same GUI APIs. If you want to argue about who has better support for cross-platform graphics, well I can run most X-11 based graphics on my Mac OS X machine out of the box, without resorting to an emulator. Can any version of Windows?

  2. BSD isn't dying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft are moving to it as well as Apple!

  3. Integrated by n9uxu8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine...what a novel concept...the ability to interact with a Unix system...they should patent that!

    Dave

    1. Re:Integrated by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Funny

      No no no...not interact...Microsoft plans to integrate UNIX into Window's code base. In the next five years, they will swap more and more Windows code for UNIX code. Eventually, there will be more UNIX code than legacy Windows code. At which point Microsoft will 1) claim ownership of UNIX, 2) begin to release Windows only UNIX code so you have to run Windows to get the "full experience of UNIX", and 3) hire analysts to compare the TCO of Windows vs. other UNIX systems.

      It's about time UNIX benefitted from Microsoft's years of marketing experience...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  4. Perhaps they should change the name now, too? by Shoten · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instead of Microsoft SFU, perhaps it would be better known as Microsoft STFU?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  5. Probably a good thing by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everytime I read "SFU", my brain tried to parse it as "STFU"...

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  6. New kernel by marcantonio · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft says that this integration couldn't be done with past architectures.

    Because, unbeknownced to the world, Microsoft is using a BSD kernel in Vista.

    Use Cygwin.

  7. I'd never have guessed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    that my girlfriend and parents were doomed to reinvent Unix...
    Fancy that.

  8. You misspelled "VMS." by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just ask Dave Cutler.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  9. Somebody call Darl! by lexbaby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unix interoperability integrated into the OS? They must be using UNIX source code. ;-)

    Somebody tell SCO!

    --
    lexbaby
    "Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce