Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trying To Appeal to the Unix Crowd?
DigDuality writes "With the news that Windows 2008 (recently discussed on Slashdot) will have GUI-less installs and be fully scriptable, that they've opened up their communication protocols for non-commercial usage and are providing a patent covenant (Redhat Responds), and now finally an interesting rumor floating around that Microsoft will be taking on GNU directly. Has Microsoft totally switched gears in how it is approaching the Unix and FOSS sector for direct competition? According to an anonymous email leaked from a Microsoft employee, it seems Microsoft will be developing a framework that will be completely GNU compatible. Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, said on Friday (23 February) that they are aiming to restore a Unix-like environment to its former proprietary glory, at the same time proving that Microsoft is committed to interoperability. Ballmer emphasized that Microsoft's new strategy is to provide users with a complete package, and this includes users who like Unix environments. According to the supposedly leaked email, UNG, which stands for UNG's not GNU, is set to be released late 2009."
A business tries to appeal to its market. The market changed. MS will change too. Its just long to shift gears of such a behemoth.
And I think this is fair enough to be applied to any company, not just Microsoft.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Does Balmer actually understand the holy war he's getting the company into?
This is like Satan trying to appeal to Christians.
*nix users have already eaten the apple and realized they were duped.
If the Nigerian princes are right, I'd say it's time to sell your Microsoft stock.
First, build a language or system that runs existing programs.
Then change the compilers so they use MS-only, intel-only features by default
Then add attractive features at the source level.
Pretty soon, you can port *to* the new platform, but can't port away from it.
--dave
[PS: If you're already in that situation and want to port, send me private email]
davecb@spamcop.net
I dunno, seems plausible enough to me. I was always of fan of the idea of extracting the NT kernel and doing a GNU distribution on top of it. (Something which is theoretically possible even without Microsoft's help, though rather difficult.) Microsoft would never have been happy about it because it would further erode their lock-in.
Of course, these days Microsoft's lock-in is slipping away fast. More and more programs are showing up on the Mac, the web is going standards-compliant, and Java has ensured that Windows no longer locks customers in on the server side.
The way I see it, Microsoft is fighting. Which is step 3 of 4 in Ghandi's formula for success: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Perhaps, but there's no denying that products like Server 2008 and Powershell definitely have a very *nix flavor to them and are at least partially meant to appeal to the Linux crowd. I'm sure MS would love to make the MySQL/MSSQL or IIS/Apache decision a little more difficult for a lot of admins out there.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
since UNG is for non-commercial use only that mean business wont be able to use it... just jane & joe sixpack on his home PC...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Long story short: "Embrace, extend, extinguish"
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If anything it's a step on the way from Embrace to Extend. Later to be followed by Extingiush. I wonder, though, if the target isn't a tad too big this time. We'll see, I guess.
Let's see, the target audience could be :
* people who hate M$'s guts all ready
* Windows users who want to see what the fuss is all about
* Manager who read this and think "my tech people like Unix, I can buy this and they will be happy".
Would anyone reading this want to touch it with a 10' pole? Anyone curious enough to find out what 'faster and easier' features they've added?
This is gonna be a dog, a distorted bizarro unix.
I hope SFU has had some improvement since I last tried it a couple of years ago. Running as an NT subsystem, and owned by MS, it should just be miles better than Cygwin. However, it feels like ISC Unix in 1991, and has poor source compatibility with other Unixes and Unixlikes such as Solaris, *BSD and Linux. Cygwin was blowing it away two years ago and probably still is.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Heaven help us if thats true.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
They're opening up to "non-commercial use".
This isn't "Microsoft's answer to Open Source", it's "Microsoft's answer to shareware".
Releasing these documents is meaningless to the open source community so long as they require money for "commercial use". It's not meaningless, but it's not the open source community that will benefit.
Then its not Free Software.
Both Free Software and Open Source advocates agree that if you can't use the software for whatever you want, including a for-profit business, then its not Free/Open Source.
So Microsoft is up to its old tricks, trying to kill Free software since they can't Embrace and Extend (and Extinguish) it. The only difference is that now it's trying to make a faux-Free clone to kill it with.
Fizz
What'd be the benefit of the NT kernel instead of Linux or *BSD? Surely the kernel doesn't directly host Win32 or .NET APIs, since so much of them has to do with the GUI.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
http://www.coderoshi.com/
My god, the Unix kernel isn't the be all end all of OSes. What is with this attitude that Unix was the best?
To paraphrase a quote, "Unix is the worst operating system, except for all the others."
There's a reason that Unix dominates so many different areas, from the smallest embedded systems to the largest supercomputers: it's very, very flexible, and gets out of your way. It doesn't straight-arm you into "my way or the highway" like most operating systems.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
What Gandhi left out is that, nine times out of ten, the fourth step is "then you're never heard from again".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Take Nobody's Word For It.
So if UNG stands for "UNG is not GNU"... And GNU stands for "GNU is not UNIX"...
Then it seems to me, that perhaps, there is a very slight possibility that "UNG _is_ UNIX" ???
I guess that when the going gets weird, the weird go pro... (yes, that's a stolen sig)
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
"able to count on some excellent tools" and from one of the parent posts "Microsoft would never have been happy about it because it would further erode their lock-in."
... like some excellent tools. That way, you get some good and free applications, sitting on top of your proprietary OS. Plus maybe even help remove, some of the reasons some corporate (non-technical) bosses of companies would think their staff would want Linux. "Why both, its got the same apps on Vista?".
also from the article link http://www.royalidea.com/site/?q=node/12 we get this section...
"The aim of UNG is to write complete GNU-like tools and frameworks that will be completely compatible with existing GNU software and standards. These tools will run natively on Vista. This means that software written for the GNU environment will be able to compile and run on Vista with little or no modifications. Major software currently running on GNU/Linux will be able to run natively on Vista."
Microsoft's strategy revolves around the idea of lock in. Looking at this from the point of view of lock in, it then sounds like Microsoft is trying to find a way to get GNU code over onto Vista. If you can't beat them, then assimilate anything useful they have
While Microsoft controls the OS, they hold the foundations upon which all their competitors try to build a living. They are not going to give that up, but any company switching to Linux is a problem for them. So this is another chess move to try to reduce corporate customers moving towards Linux. Loosing corporate customers is what Microsoft really fears. Big customers moving away from Windows sends out a message to other big customers to act in a similar way. Microsoft wants to prevent this slide, especially as more cheaper embedded systems are very likely in the near future and a lot of them are likely to be using Linux.
e.g. News such as 10 billion ARM CPU sales isn't going to help Microsoft as much as its going to help grow Linux support, as a lot of ARM CPUs are using embedded Linux. Add to this the number of other CPUs using embedded forms of Linux, then industry support for Linux is growing faster than just on desktop machines. Microsoft needs to move to either block or reduce this, to help maintain their OS lock-in.
e.g. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2207797/arm-hits-billion-processor
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Previously, Microsoft's fear was apps moving from Windows to OSS platforms. The fear was that if you could run your precious app on Linux, why keep Windows? Well, now they're talking about apps that started in the OSS world and trying to get people using them on Windows. That to me seems to be accurately fitting the hoary old gateway drug scare story! You dip your toe into OSS while still having all your comfy Windows apps on the box. You get to like the functionality, pretty soon the jump to Linux isn't all that abrupt, the desktop looks a little different but lookie here, all your apps are just fine.
By breaking down the barrier between Windows and OSS, Microsoft thinks Linux will lose the attractiveness and people will just run the OSS apps they like on Windows. I think it could accelerate the move the other direction. Well, wait five years and we'll see if I'm right.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I'll consider believing this sort of rumors when Microsoft will have usable auto completion in cmd.exe.
...
Until their command tool gets closer in usability to xterm, and their GUI gets close to GNOME, I'll stick to Solaris if I want proprietary Unix.
I suppose they could hijack one of the BSDs
I agree but I feel that in the long run it's going to totally destroy their lock-in. Let's say your a developer out to make some new software. Since *nix code can now run on Windows, OS X, Linux and Unix with a doable effort you might as well aim for that. Given a few years most software will be multi-platform and the idea of anything else will seem silly.
Why do you care that you were moderated flamebait?
This is the problem with slashdot, you can't stand the fact that your opinion was refuted by someone. Oh heaven's no! someone disagrees with what I said? How dare they take offense when I use broad stereotypes and overreaching generalizations! Here is a hint, if someone thinks you're flamebait, then you're flamebait to them. I don't think anyone goes around randomly using their mod points- I may be mistaken on that though.
You have a +2 insightful as it currently stands, and I see more insightful thought in the "Microsoft sucks" bullshit that gets posted around here all the time. It's one thing to point out that mods missed a joke or something, but another to complain that someone took your polarizing comments the wrong way. THEY ARE POLARIZING, what the hell did you expect?
The point is, why read slashdot comments if everyone thinks like you? I'd hate to have opposing viewpoints here! I mean, it's discussion of why you're so right, not about the facts and merits of the article that no one reads. I post once and a while, and sometimes people like what I say, sometimes they don't, and sometimes people just don't give a rip (I've got a lot of 1 point posts with no replies). Do you think I'm constantly hitting refresh or checking my profile to see if someone replied? You must have more smugness than a prius forum* to write a comment, and then wait for the +1 funny/insightful modifiers to roll in that you actually took offense to someone disagreeing with you.
I'm not posting anonymously, because I could care less about the -1 I'll be getting in about 10 minutes.
*heard this from someone else, didn't want to take credit for it.
Note though that the GPL is specifically designed to prevent Embrace&Extend. They cannot take, say, gcc, and develop propietary closed-source extensions on top.Their only way of applying lock-in is by using propietary formats and protocols - which require apps to be written from scratch. So, nothing new on the assimilation front.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
You mean, kind of like Linux's modules...? There's no reason to recompile a kernel just to get a system working these days, nor has there been since about 2001; indeed, vendors tend to recommend against doing so. But you do at least get the chance to say "no, I know what I'm doing" and choose.
This actually sounds like MS is acknowledging that the open source community have developed quit a lot of good applications, and MS would like them to be able to run on their machines. The implication that MS is making is that the open source model of development is actually a good one, though they probably will not admit it.
When I can install VMware, and then run a full Linux system to get real work done.
Deleted
...asking what you're going to give him in return for ripping off his plan that brought Apple back into technical leadership.There are posts from people who are clearly technical saying "What the hell? Ship MacOS 10 already. This junk doesn't work at all!"
Apple is a company which can actually warn its _own_ core system parts to keep up with times. Like:
27.02.2008 13:33:07 com.apple.launchctl.System[2] Notice launchctl: Please convert the following to launchd:
It is a polite warning for now, in a year or so, it will say very harsh things and later, it will say "I am not loading it".
Can MS do such things? As long as they can't do, they will have these issues. Dark tactics like pushing NBC to show Olympics site to SilverLight having people etc. will keep them in business though.
Windows NT did have a POSIX environment that sat above the NT kernel. The big snag though is that most of the useful services you needed were in the WIN32 environment. WIN32 is the real OS, which isn't just a GUI layer, even NT command line utilities and services sit on top of WIN32. You can't even do networking without WIN32. The kernel itself doesn't do much of anything outside of process and memory management. So given the POSIX implementation you really couldn't do more than write simple console apps that communicated to the outside world using files.
In short, it was just enough POSIX for Microsoft to claim it was POSIX.1 compliant, which was just enough to satisfy some Department of Defense contracting requirements. A sort of wink and a nod in a way; allowing contractors to make bids for POSIX systems and end up getting the Windows they wanted.
Lock-in doesn't require closed source. Look at what Apple does with GCC, they extend the compiler willy-nilly (fully open-source, all of it), and now every Mac ships with a custom GCC that understands lots of additional options, changes the meaning of others, doesn't support some standard options, and produces completely incompatible binaries...
Sure you can apply the Apple patches to mainline GCC, and get the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact the this is lock-in: Mac developers have different expectations about GCC's operation than do linux users.
http://swiftcoder.wordpress.com