Microsoft to Stop Releasing Services for Unix

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."

Comments

Microsoft's answer to UNIX

[It doesn't come easy]

Embrace and extend! UNIX is doomed! Mwahahahahaha!

Re:Microsoft's answer to UNIX

[dubious9]

Just goes to show ya, the old koan is finally coming true.

Given enough time and money, eventually Microsoft will re-invent Unix

Integrated

[n9uxu8]

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

Dave

Re:Integrated

[It doesn't come easy]

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...

Re:Integrated

[HairyCanary]

I have a gaggle of Solaris boxes that authenticate to LDAP (which AD is) and I do not see any appreciable delay due to the username lookups. And yes, our LDAP directory has thousands upon thousands of users.

Re:Integrated

[Dolda2000]

I don't know what Unix system you use, but on my GNU/Linux system (which uses the same APIs), based on GNU libc, the get*ent APIs are implemented using nameswitch modules, which can do lookups in LDAP, NIS, /etc/passwd, /etc/passwd.db, a MySQL database, or anything else. And indeed, it will be on the complexity order of whatever that algorithm chooses -- it's not a flat search.

I will agree that there are a lot of things that should be done with the Unix "directory services", but not that which you describe. The greatest problem is that Unix still uses numeric UIDs, whereas it should be using symbolic UIDs (such as Kerberos principles).

SFU was only good for one thing

[DrXym]

Free NFS. Other than that it was a pigs ear. It was just various Unix bits and pieces slapped together and massively intrusive to install, requiring reboots and services to be running all the time. I tried it for a bit, noticed the huge slowdown in startup times, the poor Unix environment which was next useless and uninstalled it. Cygwin is miles better.

And if you really need a real Unix / Linux on XP then colinux can provide it running at near-native performance.

The full story

[mparaz]

The eWeek article is just a summary. The full story is here.

I love SFU 3.5!

[georgeha]

I support a Solaris based printer, and with SFU 3.5 I can make the customer's Windows server host the jobs, and make them responsible for the NFS server, while all I have to do is add one line to vfstab. This is one good thing Microsoft has done (and Slashdot, I first read of them freeing it here).

Perhaps they should change the name now, too?

[Shoten]

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

Re:Heard that Before

[Spiked_Three]

I don't know about now, but at the time Microsofot did the POSIX implementation it wasn't so much that MS version of it was useless, it was more that the spec itself was useless. It did not have things like printing and network access, so in all reality not one single useful application in the world could say it was POSIX compliant.

I know, I worked for Microsoft Federal at the time. The only reason POSIX compliance was ever mentioned by a customer was to keep Microsoft out of a bid. So we put in POSIX. No one ever userd it or intended to use it, but it shut up the excuse to not buy Windows in the federal marketplace.
Maybe POSIX is something more today. If it's not I can certainly see why Microsoft would drop it.
Services for Linux on the other hand is useful and used in quite a number of places, and Microsoft might as well throw it in there, if nothing else just to make it easier to install. I can't see where the overhead is significant if it isnt being used.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

[carldot67]

Bill Gates' SWOT ANALYSIS:
Strengths:
  1. Marketing == Massive propaganda machine.
  2. Proprietary == Huge market penetration.
  3. Rich applications == User lock-in.

Weaknesses:
  1. Bloated and frankly god-awful code-base
  2. Expensive to maintain, insecure etc
  3. Cant really afford to start from scratch
  4. Cant steal Linux due to GPL

Opportunities:
  1. Use BSD
  2. Convert some UNIX/Linux/BSD sites
  3. Remove some barriers to entry at UNIX shops

Threats:
  1. Linux
  2. IBM
  3. Open Sourcerors

The logical BUSINESS APPROACH is this:
  1. Grab BSD.
  2. Break the interfaces.
  3. Call it "WinBSD".
  4. Creat compatibility layer: "WinBSD-API"
  5. Patent "WinBSD-API" so you now own WinBSD
  6. Trivial porting exercise
  7. Brand it like youve never branded before

What does this give you?
  -It gives you something that looks like Windows and works like Windows, but is better than it.
  -It leaves you with all your existing apps and protocols still working at minimal update cost.
  -It means your customers expensively bought/developed apps will still work.
  -It give UNIX shops one less reason to reject windows as a solution.
  -It locks out OS/3rd party developers due to the broken (and patented) WinBSD interface.
  -It offloads a large amount of knackered code.

Now add all this up and it gives MS EXACTLY what they have always strived for: Continuing user lock-in to the Windows monopoly while maintaining a very painful barrier to anyone else who wants to write for the platform.

Disclaimer: I am not an OS guru so there will be some technical issues with my analysis. Im just looking at it from a business point of view.