Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: Confirmed purchase of Interix
Alain M. Gaudrault writes "My colleagues at Softway Systems (makers of Interix, a UNIX subsystem for NT) have dropped a major bomb on me. They're moving to Seattle (I'll miss you guys!) as part of Microsoft's buyout of the technology. See Interix for more details.For those unfamiliar with Interix, it is a UNIX95-certified platform, hence, a "real UNIX environment". Much GNU s/w has already been ported to the platform, and more is certainly to come. Microsoft wants the technology becuause it acts as an intermediate step to fully porting one's apps to Win32.
"
RedHat's Market Capitalization is about 7.383 billion according to Yahoo. Microsoft's is about 497.9 billion and they have lots of money in the bank. Heck, Bill could buy it on his own!
Seriously, I think that this should be noted in this anti-trust stuff. One of Sun CEO, Scott McNealy's biggest complaints is Microsoft's buying power. Then can buy anybody and anything. How can you compete with that? Linux starts to get their attention so they buy Unix on Windows company. Like that, no sweat. They are way too powerfull and they need to be regulated by the government in some way.
-- soldack
This is a good opportunity for MS to get into the unix market and basically manipulate where necessary.
Now most previously *nix-only apps can be run on win32 systems...
Also they may integrate this into Visual Studio, copy over the unix man pages into neat MS-style help files, etc. etc. Allow for plug-ins to COM objects thus tying ppl in.
Combine this with the fact that Visual Studio is provided free to universities...
To counteract this we need wine and other tools to help migrate people over to linux.
Corel is suppossed to be working on enhancing WINE a lot. I haven't heard much about specifics but they claimed that WINE was a central part of getting all of WordPefect Office to run under Linux.
Perhaps with all their new found cash RedHat could put some serious labor on the WINE project.
-- soldack
I've been saying for a couple of months that M$ was going to gobble up some happless company to get their hands on a branded UNIX. I'd still keep an eye on folks like SCO.
I wonder if all the Interix people going to Redmond are gonna be fitted with those neat-o laser-eye thingies...
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
I have yet to see any compelling applications runnning under Unix w/ X - i.e. applications so much better than their competition (on windows or apple mac) that I would feel compelled to switch. The Gimp is nice, but neither Star Office nor Applixware are so much better than MS Office that I would switch. I do have a number of applications that I would love to run on either the WinNT or Apple (OsX) platforms. As I understand, Interix provides this capability under WinNT. Does anyone know if this is actually the case? I feel that through this move MS is acknowledging the robustness of the Unix model as a server platform and stifling the further development of this model on NT. Shame, really, since NT could be that much stronger by following the Unix path.
To me this sums up MS through and through. "Our name is worth more than our product." Really inspires faith in their value as a software provider doens't it?
that's what's killing the WINE makers. If the Win32 API actually performed to spec, WINE would be complete by now.
This was unspectacular (NFS server/client, telnet server for NT, maybe a NIS thing, etc) but from the little I used it, it worked perfectly well. Worth installing if you have a lone NT box in your Unix farm.
-----
As long as I know Linux is around (since 1995, that's four years ago) I've been reading about wine. It still is rather buggy and doesn't run much software reliably.
Somehow I don't think wine will ever be a good alternative for running windows programs on windows. Of course you can design your programs to work with wine (like corel is trying to do) but its not the same thing. You can forget about ms office bcause unless MS wants this to work on wine, it will do everything to prevent it from working on wine.
Jilles
Entertainingly, this means that NT is actually more Unix than Linux is. Oh, the irony!
"Bill Gates would probably rather lose all of his money and become a drunk hobo before he gives up on the vision of "Windows Everywhere" ".
Absolutely wrong. Bill has no pride in this respect, and that is his greatest strength. He was quite happy to admit that MS was wrong with Xenix. Quite happy to admit Win3.x was crap, and move to NT. Quite happy to admit that Blackbird was crap, that the net was important afterall, and that MS would beat Netscape at their own game.
When/if Bill decides that NT is crap, and Unix was right afterall, he will have a big company meeting, a big press release, and a big spending spree. Then, in 4 or 5 years he will beat every other Unix vendor out there, by doing stuff like replacing X windows with something that works, creating a solid Win32 emu layer, and creating modern development tools.
Wait and see.
-----
I can accept that. I haven't followed the trial very closely
notepad has limits in 9x for file size. hasn't been the case in nt since at least 3.51
matt
The person who submitted the article said
There's more to being "a real UNIX environment" than just implementing the stuff in POSIX.1, which is what the NT POSIX subsystem implements - POSIX.1 doesn't cover all the APIs that one might use in a UNIX application (e.g., it contains no networking APIs whatsoever). Interix also implements the POSIX.2 commands.
So much for FUD...
Computer launch Phase II assimilation.
Now, to the product itself. Or actually to all of you that worry that Microsoft will conquer the market with this thing. Let me remind you that its not the cost of the operating system. Its the source code that makes Linux what it is. Microsoft will never release its code, and if it will, it will still not match that of the flexibilty with Linux. Regardless of Unix95 compliance. Now it does invite NT administrators that are already running NT to run GNU software at their boxes. This is considered a good thing for the GNU generation. So hail the victory! Here she comes!
Sincerely, Alexander
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
I don't remember if it was the same thing, but I tried an evaluation copy of a unix subsystem for NT, and it was rather neat. You could run windows and Unix apps at the same time, there was a useful command line shell, remote administration worked perfectly, and so did X. We had a nice laugh about the license (ranging from several thousand to a few million dollar per licence iirc) and uninstalled it again.
By the way (slightly off topic) it's annoying when sites like the one mentioned in the post do specify a background colour, but not a foreground colour. This way with my browser settings it shows up as white letters on a white background. When writing html, don't assume too much (like every sane person has black as default foreground colour).
Your probably right. They could also get all the major daemons running and use it as a claim that Unix applications are slower then Win32 applications. As stupid as that sounds to you and me, I am sure some magazine would publish a Microsoft study "proving" it. It continues a classic Microsoft move of providing crippled compatibility. There is no way that SendMail under Interix will beat Exchange. Maybe it did before but now MS can make sure that it doesn't. It reminds me of Dr. DOS, Lotus, WordPerfect, QuickTime, RealVideo, etc. They all complained of this type of underhandedness. It's like a car dealer designing a car that will not run as well with someone elses parts.
I still worry about Microsoft getting into the Linux distro business!
-- soldack
actually most of them are correct.
There's essentially nothing worth doing that can be done with the Posix.1 subsystem.
And anyway, it's a stupid way to design an operating system, having posix compliance comparmentalized into a subsystem. You can't manipulate the windows environment unless you use a ($$) X-server, can't utilize the native NT functionality (which is the reason ppl deploy NT in the first place). It's an orphan.
Let M$ buy out every desktop app maker.They missed the web and it will ultimately crush themThe web is your OS.
what do you mean, HAS?
Unlike the Amiga, Mac is alive and well.
pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Word Perfect may have been almost dead, but it certainly isn't anymore... Corel is pushing it's all time high higher month by month now.
That doesn't mean that he couldn't get 7 billion whenever he wants to. There's not many banks that would consider his stocks to be inadequate security for a 7 billion loan...
Now, if MS were really smart, they'd focus on going the other way. In other words, they can now claim some UNIX compatibility, and can start to take over roles that UNIX machines always did before *USING THE UNIX TOOLS*. Imagine an NT system running bind and pppd, at your service provider? ick.
Does it run X? Anyone know?
Who wants to port a UNIX app to NT?
Talk to the Wine guys... There's plenty of undocumented functions. Wine has stubs for all/most of them, but the problem is in implementing them, obviously, since there's no official documentation available.
I read a long time ago that Microsoft had signed an agreement with Xerox (or was it AT&T?) that they would not compete in the unix market. Would this be considered compitition, as they could potentially offer a unix compatible (laugh) system. If anyone has any more info about the agreement I'd love to hear it, or was it just a passing rumor?
My understanding is that Corel isn't "designing their programs to work with Wine", but rather improving Wine so that it will run their programs. Obviously Corel is more concerned about fixing the stuff in Wine that makes their apps run better, but last I heard the changes they make are in Wine, not in their applications.
MS opens source for NT5. They claimed to have stuffed the source in a few lines and opened half of their source. It looked something like this
}Of course, that was segfault
(Yeah moderate this down if you like. Whatever)
This sounds like Microsoft may be about to use the same tactics it used in the "Java war" here. By now controlling the middle man in the porting of software between Win32 and *nix they can feel free to use a flawed implementation that is flaunted around as the "greatest ever." Then when people begin to encounter problems, Microsoft can just smile, and tell them that it is their *nix boxes that are the problem, and that they should consider moving to WinNT. This looks to be some bad news indeed!
What's cygwin looking like these days? I used to use it when I had an NT machine :)
-- Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.
I suspect the point is that this might just as well help users make a transition from NT to Unix.
if microsoft is trying to port unix programs to NT that could mean that they are taking the right step towards making a more stable operating system (when it comes to an NT and Unix envrionment). I remember a few years ago microsoft wouldn't touch anything that had to do with *nix. I perfect example of this is the Microsoft TCP/IP printing to *nix LPR daemons protocool(sp) was so full of trash and bugs, I had to use third party software to do anything reliably (if you can call anything reliable in NT) between my NT Server and my IRIX box when it came to printing. It wasn't until SP3 that they code was finnaly patched up. We either might see a more stable NT when it comes to and NT and *nix environment, or they are going to go all out like apple did and use a *nix/BSD core for a new operating system (probably Windows 2010). The latter possiblilty is very far fetched, but hell apple did it, and even open sourced the important parts. I know one thing is for sure. Microsoft will never open source anything... not even notepead.
I evaluated Interix last year. It was not bad, but given that:
:->
1. You can't use Win32 calls
2. No 3rd-party support (notably, things like Optimizer only worked for Win32)
3. Cygwin spreads and allows you to port Unix apps _and_ use Win32-based libs.
4. Distributing Interix apps forces you to pay royalties. Cygwin is free.
5. Softway was focused on supporting corporate
environments and legacy systems, not ISVs developing shrik-wrapped apps.
6. It's just easier to build stuff already configured for cygwin, or even better, Linux.
So Softway was doomed. And it was already a Microsoft partner.
`Eternal death' is it then.
[Maybe now M$ will integrate the two subsystems.
And we'll have a much better `cygwin' then, and the developers will be able to spend theit time doing more useful stuff
Looks like the M$ `Linux' strategy is starting to take form..]
I really hope this means it will come with parts of Interix integrated into newer releases of Windows (such as 2000). I would imagine this will help with the interoperability of NT and things like Cygwin32.
Interix currently has a fairly good product. I used it a while back (it came with another product called Easy Spooler, which was ported from Unix to NT and required Interix to run) and it seemed pretty solid to me. It was also great to have all the good old commands around that I've grown to love from using various Unix systems.
But, if it was integrated (i.e. you don't have to spend $2000 more per server to get it) with NT, it would be quite a bit easier to port all the GNU programs you can't live without. Anyway, this looks to be a good thing.
Linux have to become MSU-extension compliant?
2) It may be a way of gathering some people who know the industry and the code for whatever reasons they might have (to many to list).
3) Then again, it may be just what the PR guys say, to allow (paraphrase enable) 'all you poor unix guys a chance to catch up.' (paraphrase cancel)
4) anti-antiFUD (who says we are anti-compatable?)
5) Lastly, they have nothing to lose and all the above to gain. A win win situation.
But there is another side to this. Who says the whole limited compatabilty thing has to be a streanth for them?
I believe it is a matter of perspective. I for one would find it much easier to tell a customer that I am going to put a *nix box on thier network if I could tell them that win2000(nt) was built to take it.
Lastly I would welcome a real terminal program other than the one they have isued in the past. Man that thing drives me nuts.
The example I'm thinking of is the MS Java XML parser. Go get the license and have a look.
It's sort of a reverse BSD license - do whatever you want, but you CAN'T put Microsoft's name on it.
Give credit where credit is due.
Did anyone else notice that they were thinking of releasing their software opensource? I wonder if MS snapped them up to keep about all of us from porting over our favorite toys & wondering why they don't work quite the same?
-- John Detch (detch@detch.com)
Reminds me of a usenet .signature I saw a while ago:
"Given enough time and money, eventually Microsoft will re-invent UNIX."
goddamn it, I hit submit, not preview.
:)
I meant to say:
"What do mean, HAD?"
Whew got that out of my system
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
That's exactly what Interix is (except that at least some of it presumably runs in a user-mode subsystem process rather than in the kernel).
Note, though, that it doesn't "[support] Unix apps" in the sense of running binaries from some flavor of UNIX, as the Interix FAQ notes (see "Can I run any of my UNIX applications with INTERIX?").
I think Microsoft can live with that (and note that some OSS applications, e.g. the GIMP, have been ported).
if it was so good, why did they have to buy someone else's product which does the same thing?
I feel like you've hit the nail on the head.
If M$ wanted true *nix/Posix compliance they
could have made or bought it years ago (I may
be a Linux Zealot, but I recognize the skills
that M$ has at its disposal) -- ergo they don't
want it. Their inability to compete with the
Santa Cruz Operation makes apparent that they
are not going to become a Unix vendor, and would
sidestep any possibility of being confused with
one.
They are smarter than to promote a *nix<->NT
layer capable of allowing the WordPerfect's of
the world to move easily to Linux, or the
StarOffice's of the world to move easily to
NT.
Buying this company stifles its freedom to
develop a useful layer for M$'s competition,
and allows Redmond to kill the company, grab
some good in-house *nix consultants, and even
take a write-off while doing so.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
A working POSIX layer?If so, then why would they buy iterix?
Hey guys, we can do a lot better than third-hand rumor! Check out the EDGAR database at www.sec.gov, "the Fresh Meat of Wall Street".
SCO 1999 DEF 14A
This is SCO's annual proxy statement to shareholders. It lists all entities that own 5% or more of SCO. As of 31 December 1998, Microsoft Corporation owns 12.3% of SCO.
Sun's not listed here; neither is IBM. IBM does have a joint development project with SCO named "Monterey".
I've also heard the stories about a non-competition agreement about Microsoft and the Unix market, but again, I don't see any mention of them in SCO's public filings. It certainly doesn't appear on their balance sheet as an asset.
This would, however, be a tie-in to RedHat.
:(
If RedHat were really into free software or something, they'd find a way to buy it, make it open-source or something, and end up allowing *other distros* to carry it as well. And that'd be cool, and a killer app indeed.
How come I can't see it happening any day soon?
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
..or NTEmacs (now part of the Emacs dist?)
(Let's not start another Emacs -v- Vi(m) war...)
Again more MS FUD about cost of Ownership :
"This acquisition means customers can more easily benefit from Windows' lower TCO and easier manageability"
Is there anyone who runs both that thinks NT is cheaper to manage than Unix ? Unless you are a really inept Unix admin.
Can someone explain where they get this from ?
It not just MS that says this, all these consultant groups always say the same thing.
Unix lets you distribute software over a network for free, doesn't crash windows style and remote admin is trivial.
Actually, word on the street has it that Softway was on their way to being quickly broke and that this was a mercy purchase and an easy way for Microsoft to hold onto some of the licenses that they got from Softway.
They used to be known as Softway and I have used their product on both Intel and Alpha (thoough the Alpha port wasn't fully native as of a few months ago). This is an obvious move for MS now that the product is branded Unix 95. I spoke with these folks on the phone about two years ago and mentioned that they ought to be looking to move someday. It's the most logical step MS could make in the war between Sun and MS. Think of it the next time you hear the raging debate of whether Unix or NT is better... "but NT IS UNIX!" you will hear as the reply. It is an excellent product for porting Unix apps to NT. It's not much use to anyone but developers though. The X windows part of the product is actually Exceed's which they started bundling in. Well, hope they are happy now. They indicated that they weren't exactly against the idea when I talked to them last so at least this isn't one of those hostile thingies.
But this isn't about porting between *nix/NT. It's one-way, from Unix to NT.
As far as the legal definition anyway. Let's face it... there's SUN, IBM, HP, DEC, etc. then there's OSes like Linux, OpenNT, and SCO. The former group is the traditional UNIX from traditional vendors. They've been beat up for a long time and are a bit more case hardened because of it. The later group will run the same programs from (once the've been recompiled and tweaked of course) but target different audiences then the traditional UNIX shop. OpenNT is real UNIX and it is not emulated. It is not the joke of a POSIX system the MS through into NT just so it could look good on paper. If you want a UNIX server OpenNT is not for you. If you want a UNIX server that will allow tighter integration to your mostly NT shop and allow you to migrate remaining apps from you existing UNIX boxes over to NT then it's a good solution. I'm a MCSE candidate (have electives remaining but don't intend to pursue it further) and have used NT since 3.1 Advanced Server. I would sleep so well at night if I were expected to deliver the same level of service and scalability on NT as what the Sun camp delivers. You will not see me migrating critical apps from UNIX to NT. BUT... if you feel macho enough to do it then OpenNT is the product for you (just make sure your resume is up to date).
The package from Cygnus including gcc works with many different unix packages on NT platforms. Sometimes you can just type make to compile the package. It includes a nice bash shell with unix commands and utilities like tar and gzip.
You still need an X server on your machine to display the window locally. Exceed makes a good stable one but is expensive. I think a company named Star make x-win32 which is free for 2 hour sessions (and supports wheeled mice).
I have even started an exceed telnet daemon on my NT box. Users could log into a shell account. They could also start X11 apps and view them from the remote machine (no win32 apps though). I did not leave telnet up because of security concerns.
We didn't explore the this configuration, but it seemed at least partially workable. Watch out for this. M$ can easily release something with some unix functionality rolled into it. A decent free x-server would be nice, and it could be considered part of the operating system...
Screw the web. /bin/bash;enlightenment uber alles
Because at one time or another, an OS required a POSIX layer in order to be used under certain circumstances in gov't settings. So Microsoft threw in a token POSIX sub-layer
As has been discussed before, this really isn't surprising. But I suggest that there is something more subtle going on here and that perhaps M$ has something up their sleave. By giving UNIX functionality to NT, they are positioning themselves to elbow in on the UNIX market (obviously). But what are they going to do with this (Internix) in the future? I have always been concerned with the prospect of M$ using GPL'd code for profit, and I believe this to be the doorway in for them. I'm not saying I know what bill and co are going with this, but I bet it is more profound than any of the comments listed here.
:)
Watch your back people, the great assimilators are on the prowl.
-- Moondog
Having tested both their VMware for Linux and VMware for NT/2000 it is clear they have the hottest technology. Multiple virtual machines open within either Linux or NT running Linux, or Win 95/98/NT/2000. And the price is considerably less than Interix for personal use - $75 through October 7. There are some true advantages for developers including virtual networking within the host, and special file system options inculding read-only, journals, and conditional journals. Running NT and Win98 machines within Linux is astounding. This is a well thought out product. Download the 30 day evaluations. Maybe RedHat should counter the Microsoft move and buy VMWare?
I can vouch for this. Accidentally double-clicked on a 250M log file. Whhhooooo, watch a simple text editor bring down a server! eswan - a mozilla ate my cookie.
Look like interix had trouble getting clients. Their last effort was a possible open sourcing of their work in June. Looks like Microsoft stepped in right when they were going to drop the bomb and offered a bit more for the code than publicity, so now they're a Microsoft subsidiary and not open sourcing Jack. Well at least the suits at Microsoft read LinuxToday. How many potential open source projects never see the light of day because Microsoft buys them out and shuts them down?
Or, at least, they didn't want it until now. Perhaps they've decided that they now do want it, to try to help customers move rapidly towards a Windows NT-based solution...
...wait, it says precisely that in the press release announcing the acquisition.
I've yet to see anything to indicate that Microsoft's motivation is anything other than what's described therein; they may plan to kill the product once it's served its purpose, which is to get UNIX sites migrated to NT.
This isn't a "*nix<->NT layer", it's a *nix->NT layer - it doesn't "allow the WordPerfect's of the world to move easily to Linux", it's intended to let applications move to NT, and may be aimed primarily at in-house applications rather than shrink-wrapped applications.
I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
You know, you always hear about the undocumented Windows API's that are out there? Can anyone actually show me one? Something I can get to compile with VC++? I've never seen a page listing any "ah, here is some odd functions we saw in a debugger we can't find a reference to anywhere..." or anything like that. Has anyone tried to compile a list of these calls or anything?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Then maybe NT won't suck then?
INterex is a separate subsystem. It does not even touch WIN32. I've used the product and studied the product and I've used NT for 5 years now (and I'm fully certified). Interex is a native subsystem that runs on top of the HAL. It runs in parallel to WIN32 and both subsystems are (1) native (2) independant (3) already present in NT. OpenNT pulls out the old POSIX.1 crap and puts in a fully UNIX95 subsystem. It does not alter WIN32 IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. MS has spent over $1 billion a year developing NT. They've got some of the the brightest OS minds on this planet to design and develop NT. NT is an EXCELLENT product as far as design goes. It far surpases UNIX in most areas. The problem is in the sloppy coding and the bundling of IE and gaiming crap into the core OS. Thess flaws have absolutely nothing to do with the original design or POSIX command environment. Somebody was either mistaken when they told you that or, more likely, they were skewing the truth to get buy in. It does run on the bare iron and it does replace certain code in NT and thus bypasses any perceived inefficiencies in WIN32. But it doesn't replace anything in WIN32!
Really? You've bought a copy of Motif?
I have (SWiM Motif for Linux) but I don't know that many Linux users who have.
Actually, I've been switching over to NetBSD, because I've grown tired of the imperfect Unix compatability of Linux.
(I know, I know, just another bit of kindling..)
To smooth things out I will state that I like Emacs and vi. Emacs is good when I am doing a lot of coding, and need to reach into the text with search tools, have multiple files open, etc. Vi is good when I am telnetted into the OS/2 box that I run our builds off of from my Win32 box just to touch up a script without walking over to the machine.
Xemacs has been ported to Win32 machines, though it does a few scary things to the stability of Windows 95 (it makes it worse!!) once in awhile. And of course everybody has cloned/ported vi to run anywhere. I can even slip a copy of it into the target machines at work (embedded OS/2 hardware) and make it run properly.
The Gartner Group, the Aberdeen Group, and Burton, they all have reports that confirm how badly has NT proved in the enterprise, compared to NetWare 4.x, OS/2 Warp and various unices. I even had a bunch of interesting links a year ago, should I look them up again?
Sigged!
Vi? That ancient modal piece of tripe? Use NT Emacs! Sorry, couldn't resist. The world needs a vi-ported-to-Windows vs. Emacs-ported-to-Windows flame war.
what the hell is he up to??? he wants to take over the world what can we do? anwsers on a postcard please will he try to buy out corel?????
We could only hope for a 100% win32 compatible version of linux. Think of the conversions if people who can't get ports of their software could still use it, yet have the benefits of linux.
Is there any doubt that 2000 is not based on the 95 codebase? It's clearly NT based.
This is the first step in the abandonment of Windows in favor of UNIX. I would like to thank OS geeks everywhere for bringing Microsoft to it's senses. I always knew that one day UNIX would triumph over that toy OS.
pretty solid...
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Beyond the obvious implications of the buy, this could be an interesting way to prove that Linux is superior technology. Interix announced a while ago that it was adding Linux compatibility into their Unix-on-NT suite. So, whip out those benchmarks. Let's see just how well NT does on Linux territory. Is tweaked Unix Apache slower on NTUnix? Tell the world! GIMP/Linux trounce GIMP/NT? Call the Berst-meister! This could prove to be extremely interesting.
I thought I wanted a career. It turns out I just wanted paychecks.
i am not sure if this is good or bad , i dont know if alot of ppl want to start porting soft ware to Unix95 . not sure if it is a good thing if micro soft keeps buying up ppl like this. it starts me thinking if this thing is going to take off. realy i wonder if it could be used the other way around though porting windows soft ware over to unix .
sould we use this system to help in the demises of windows , should we realy want to see micro softs products go down hill.
gnu seems like a better plan for me pa.
I have been predicting that Microsoft would buy Interix for a few months now. Unfortunately it wasn't publicly traded so it wasn't possible to reap a killing from it as an investor.
NT was originally something quite layered and vaguely (but not quite) resembling a microkernel. the current versions are *not* something that anyone reasonable would call a uK; not even MS claims taht anymore.
question[from someone ignorant about wine]: if the reason windows is dominant is that everyone has written functional apps to the api's, therefore it has WAY more apps than linux, and if third-parties all have access to the same published api's, then why can't wine implement these api's successfully? i mean fine, office might use some hooks that only ms knows but the vast majority of apps (third-party) use only published api's. therefore isn't the unpublished api issue somewhat of a red herring??????
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Last time I checked, gcc was still very much available on NT along with most of the core GNU tools, a couple of commercial ports of sendmail on NT were available, and the Qt widget set worked very well indeed on NT, albeit not as part of a window manager and desktop environment. (And by the way, NT4's DNS services are provided by a registry-aware BIND, if I recall.)
Seems like this is a neat and clever way for MS to smooth their transition from NT to a Un*x-family OS for application servers.
Step 1: Offer an environment for running Unix-style apps under Windows 2000.
Step 2: Spend the next couple of years migrating or converting core server apps (IIS, Exchange, Active Directory) to the Unix-like side, in some cases replacing them with customized, MS-branded versions of Apache, OpenLDAP, etc. Elevate this layer to full parity with Win32 from a support standpoint.
Step 3: New release of disk-based NT with a true BSD or Linux kernel at its core, completing the transition to MS-branded Unix. Run "legacy" apps in an emulation layer, possibly even WINE or its successor. Reassign the thousands of engineers who have been previously occupied with the economically dubious task of writing and maintaining a proprietary OS core.
"we're considering opening some of our sources in the future"
1. Buy Interix
2. Snap some GNU source codes
3. Rename some variables
4. Claim to have modified the source
5. Release it
Simple.
This could be a short term attack on Java. I know of a few companies using Java to get cross-platform to Windows. This little *nix on Windows could bring the *nix apps over and stall the ports to Java because they wouldn't be needed. MSFT then slowly cripples the *nix API's (add NOOP's) to get ports to Win32. Java is really picking up from what I see and this could be what MSFT is going after. They can fight the *nix API battle after Java is dumped on the floor.....
hissss, booooo, NO WAY!
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The whole idea is to make it easier for people to port to Win32. This has nothing to do with MS switching to UNIX.
No. My point is that one can argue that 2000 is the successor system despite its different codebase, since the Bristol jury found the distinction betwen server and desktop software did not exist in the eyes of the law. If MS has monopoly power it has monopoly power, and that doesn't have to be qualified by saying on the desktop. Thus T P Jackson could declare monoploy remedies and constraints on the licensing of MS W2k as well as the licensing of 9X, and he'd be would be standing on precedent established in a case MS is perceived to have won.
Almost any small package that I have tried builds and runs on Interix. Anything that will run, for example, on Linux and on BSD. Applications that are Linux-only are pretty bound to always be Linux-only. Almost anything else can be ported to run on Interix with minimal effort. It uses the GNU C Compiler, after all. In many cases porting simply involves running sh ./config and make .
Note that you end up with Posix applications, which can be run in textmode at a Posix prompt (various shells are present, Bash is available as source) or as an X application (displayed locally with eXceed, or remotely over the net on any machine with X. Interix will NOT build binaries that can be run at the regular Win32 command prompt.
Cygwin32 doesn't do anything comparable. They produce a product that runs on top of the Win32 API, with all the compromises that involves. Softway Systems licensed the NT Source code in order to develop an entire Posix API layer that talks directly to the NT Kernel. I suspect that with some work, you could even set up an NT box to run NT and not have anything at all use Win32 except certain admin functions.
Another, even better option -- Cygnus' Cygwin. Quite a bit of commonly-used open source software is already ported (most GNU stuff compiles out of the box, but there's lots of other stuff full of Linuxisms that needed to be ported better.) It has the added advantage of being able to run on 95/98 as well, although with substantially fewer features (like file security.)
In addition, Cygwin seems to still be actively maintained. EGCS is available for it among other things (to be fair, the same guy that ports EGCS to Cygwin also does it for UWIN.)
RE: Symlinks -- if the API could support a symlink, why not add the feature?? Oh, could it be because Micros~1 can't figure out what to call it (can't use symlink... that's a unix term, can't use shortcut...)
RE: Buggy NFS... If Micros~1 cared about security or not supporting imperfect file sharing protocols, it would have NEVER adopted lanman/smb/cifs (which is a security NIGHTMARE!!), and... how come Windows supported Novell protocols from the beginning, but not UNIX (HINT: Unix incompatibility was a designed-in FEATURE of Windows, until recently when that became unreasonable)
RE: Trusted version of Linux... I'm not a Linux bigot. I'll use *ANY* unix. If I need the security of a trusted version, I can use special versions of Solaris or Tru64 unix. Use linux where it makes sense. Windows locks you into a single vendor who can change directions and abandon your strategy (witness Alpha) and you're left with no recourse.
Nothing is perfect, but Windows just can't compete with the collective strength of the Various versions of UNIX offered by Various vendors who cater to various markets.
Use the right tools for the right task, and don't lock yourself into a single-vendor relationship. That's it, Plain and simple.
When you have as much money as Microsoft, you don't have to create your own technology, you just buy it from whoever will sell it to you. Pretty sad really.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
You may chance your mind if you order an evaluation copy of the openNT software, and try it for yourself. It really is a great product. I'm sure MS intend to market it, not destroy it.
I've spoken to some people at Interix, not so long ago... at LISA-NT in Seattle... and they were just about to release a new version that had resolved a lot of the early problems, and supported some things that NT has been seriously lacking in, such as versioned libraries.
It also came with GCC standard.
They were also talking about releasing all the non-Microsoft code as open source. I guess that's not going to happen now. I suspect there won't be any more OpenNT releases either.
...and they have lots of money in the bank. Heck, Bill could buy it on his own!
;-)
Yeah, they're one of about 10 big companies in the world that have over a billion US$ in cash reserves. Bill himself has a lot of stock, a lot of options and a bit of debt (secured with stock). He personally does not have hoards of cash just kicking around, not 7 bil anyway
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Technically, that's backwards.
Should be:
Embrace --< Extend --< Extinguish
As in:
Microsoft embraces Java
Microsoft introduces MS J++
Microsoft announces java is dead, use ActiveX instead.
Mija Cat
If MS improves interix to make it linux compatible and bundles it with win2k, it would be great. I've been wanting to run some linux apps and this way, I would never need linux. Maybe this is part of their strategy?
No, edit.com is.
We're here discussing a Posix-compliant API for Windows NT, and you're rambling something about Notepad? Sheesh.
Microsoft today, mumbling something about having every linux developer killed off and stealing their copyrights, announced a linux distrubution. "It was through our brave new move, along with the help from Interix, that we can proudly proclaim the introduction of a brand new wave in computing. No longer does the IT departments have to stress over if they should allow an untested 'volunteer' operating system, or a true stable operating system such as NT. Now they can have compatibility with linux, and the benifits of being a partner with a well established company."
You're a wonderful advocate for Open Source computing. "I don't want people to be able to run apps on platforms I don't like." Freedom, indeed.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
*grin* they can't, they have to put a EULA on it somehow..
:)
I think if Microsoft got into the Linux distro business it would be lawsuit heaven.. I mean, think about it.. tens of thousands of people have developed Open Source software.. and (by my estimates) 98% of them HATE Microsoft.
They do one thing wrong, they put a typo in the GPL, anything, and they will get sued. People will be reverse-engineering the binaries to make sure there weren't any alterations.. things like that.
Any any improvements that they make, even if they really ARE improvements (don't ask me, it technically COULD happen) would not be accepted by the Open Source development community - probably people would just start from scratch cloning it or make some changes and split off development from Microsoft.
In a sports metaphor - Microsoft distributing Linux would be the first time in about a decade they actually had to play a real game away from home.. and they just don't know how to do it anymore. They aren't going to give up the home field advantage - I would more expect them to develop their own, new OS completely from scratch (not basing it off windows at all, starting over completely) over picking up a Linux distribution.
But then again, I have been wrong all day
Remember Citrix? Citrix licences NT3.x code and develops a multi-user version of Windows NT with clients on DOS, Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and just about anything else. In Windows NT 4.0, Microsoft denys Citrix the right to run in this space. MS creates it's one version called Terminal Server Edition with a license that makes no financial sense to deploy to a client that only runs on Windows. Citrix is not dead yet, but I've seen plenty of obituaries for it.
I think Microsoft is buying this company because they don't want anybody else tinkering in the low level backend layers. Anybody can write an application for Windows; but, try to write a back-end layer that might be portable and watch out. They push DCOM+ and Network Named Pipes because those don't run on anything but a Windows front-end.
Prediction: MS will rape and pillage this Interix POSIX sub-system and assimilate both technology and employees into the MS collective where there is no danger of this growing into a platform for NT to encourage any flavor of UNIX.
Months from now, no one will remember Interix.
This is a boring sig
The Ottawa Unix Users Group had a presentation last year by Stephen Walli, the chief architect of OpenNT (the original name of Interix product). He indicated that it worked by basically replacing the WIN32 subsystems of NT by separate code that was built on the NT HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) not Win32. This allowed Interix to bypass the inefficiencies of standard NT but run Unix software on same machine at same time as Win32 code.
If Microsoft is buying this technology, it indicates either they want to bury it or that they need the Interix efficiency to gain in the server market.
Since one of the chief complaints about NT as a server is its Win32 based complexity and lack of efficiency, I would bet on the latter. Trying to bury it would just open the market up for someone else to make software that runs Unix or Linux under NT. It is much easier to port *NIX to NT than the reverse because Unices are better defined and better partitioned. As the WINE project shows, they are lots of hidden parts of the Win32 API, and even MS probably doesn't know all the gotchas.
OK. All of it nullified? Some of it nullified? Remember an agreement isn't always everything or nothing. Some clauses can be found invalid without making the entire document null and void.
Another excellent free beer editor for Windows text (and HTML) is Notetab . Emacs for DOS is also available from DJGPP.
EDIT is definately better than notepad, but nothing (on a windows machine) comes close to EDLIN :)
Of course, any sane EDLIN user would install vim.
Yeah, Micros~1 has great products.... except when they can't get their developers to code their way out of a shoebox... then they buy a competing product...
... then there's clustering, where even buying a competitor doesn't give them a usable product.
I'd suspect that any attempts to take the best parts of the interix posix subsystem and put them in Windows would just break all of the undocumented APIs that their apps supposedly don't use.
Apache and GIMP are already available for NT -- the bigger deal is NT users being able to use all the Unix software that hasn't already been ported to NT.
The main downside here for the Unix camp in the Microsoft vs. Unix marketing war is that while NT users would be able to use their favorite Unix apps, the most popular NT apps still won't be available for Unix. Love your GNU tools but your clients all demand Word documents? Easy, use NT and you can easily use them both. Don't wanna give up Squid or Pine, but exasperated by Netscape's browsing experience when compared to IE, along with not having the latest Real Media players and Adobe Acrobat viewers? No problem, get NT and use 'em both. There are scores of examples here, if that's the direction in which Microsoft plans to take their purchase.
On a related note, what I find annoying are the people who are getting worked up over this, who just hate the thought of anything improving the NT user experience. These bigots have no business promoting free quality software for all. If this product works as well as some of the people in this thread attest, it is a Good Thing. Just like full WINE compatibility would be a Good Thing. Just like Solaris's and SCO's ability to run Linux binaries is a Good Thing (I haven't tried either of the latter two, so I don't know how well they work -- so if they don't, save the flames). Products like these result in more options for people -- the platform zealots reading this can go to Hell.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
For the semantically inclined, in the above, everytime I referred to Unix, I was talking about all Unix-like OSes, Linux included.
Well, at least they didn't buy RedHat!
This could become pretty bad, though. Microsoft has always been pretty good at the eliminating reasons not to switch to their software buy being very compatible and being (on the surface) good imitators. Look at Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. Crushed and practically dead. Now they can say: "Buy Win2k, 100% Unix Compatible!" Doesn't the sale have to be approved by the SEC and FTC? Or is that only for big mergers/buyouts? Anyone know the rules for this?
-- soldack
Looks like they are gearing up to start an assault on Linux. Even though it's just *nix compatibility, they'll probably shout "Just like *nix, only better!"
Microsloth 95/98/NT are just too bloody unstable for my tastes and it's wonderful how often people keep finding new and fun security bugs.
Give me AIX and Linux anyday!
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
[humor]Well for their sake I hope they don't opensource notepad. Its their only quality non-buggy product.[/humor]
I am glad that Windows(TM) will become a better platform because of this wise marketing move. If you can't beat 'em - buy 'em!
The irony of it. With this purchase Microsoft is selling a branded Unix. Remember what Microsoft keeps on saying about Linux taking marketshare from Unix? Well now that Microsoft is a Unix vendor, I will gleefully admit that that is true for at least one flavor of Unix!
Sorry Microsoft, you can't polish a turd, and you cannot make it into a workhorse by adding a fur coat either!
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
In fact, you may find "proof" of the existence of this software at this location.
--
Now how long do we have to wait before he uses Open Source for his own good, and profits from it? Sure is cheap enough...oh damnit, now I'm starting to think like him. Esh.
Hopefully he won't see this and get any ideas...heh heh.
miyax
Ever tried opening a Unix formatted text file in Notepad? Most other editors have no problem...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Unfortunately, wine seems to be taking forever. I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Red Hat has stated that they are buying up whatever makes the most sense. Despite the big bag of money they've gained from their IPO, Bob Young has said that they can't buy everything they want. This is a Good Thing; we need room for the rest of us, rather than one giant buying everything in sight.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
Word 97's spelling checker suggests "opponent" for OpenNT.
Just another datapoint in the debate...
On NT, Mentor Graphics Microtec compilers for VRTX run under nutcracker, which is a Unix (Korn) shell (running atop the Win32 subsystem) developed by Mortice Kern Systems. Maybe M$ is going to go after traditional Unix strongholds like (non-desktop) software development. I wish more vendors would move their products to Linux, but at least Solaris is better than NT.
Changes aren't permanent, but change is.
Well, I bought a copy of Interix for home about six months ago and have been wondering why it gets consistently ignored on Slashdot. I figured it probably was being viewed as a Bad Thing(tm) by Linux folks since it lets me build, run, and export (for display on any other machine running an X Server) X applications on my NT box. That means Motif(tm) and not just free attempts at Motif compatability. It was expensive (about $400 I remember) but pretty cool stuff. The GNU C compiler on NT, and not just a Win32 kludged version (see Cygnus for that)
./configure" on it, then build using the resulting Makefiles. I believe I read on the Interix website that X11R6 has been ported to Interix. The full version comes bundled with Exceed (and Motif, etc.) in any event.
A few months ago Softway Systems even put out a query to see if there was support for them Open Sourcing Interix. I imagine it would have been impossible, though, as they signed the NDA and were privy to the NT source code in order to develop their product (Interix talks directly to the NT kernel, and plugs as a replacement for the crippled Posix subsystem that MS came out with)
I have plugged in Linux/Unix applications as source code on Interix and had it just build and run flawlessly. Just like on a Linux system, explode the Tarball, run "sh
Interix is pretty cool stuff if you're running an NT system and want fairly good Unix compatability. I suspect Microsoft will be bundling it (or portions thereof) with Windows 2000. I wonder if I'll get any sort of deal for being a registered (paid quite a bit for it) Interix customer?
NT is a microkernel. You can port UNIX to NT, but not NT to UNIX. You could, however, port Win32 to UNIX.
Yeah, they were ("Linux on NT," if you will...)! Check out this link from their home page:
t ml
http://www.interix.com/press/press99/06.08.99.h
"Professional coder on closed source. Do not attempt."
Anybody remember Coopers and Peters? MSFT bought them and we never saw the products again. Remember the other Java company that was doing some incredible graphics in Java (Liquid ????). They are gone too. :(
Interix was possibly going to come out with a pseudo open source license of a software product called *nix For Windows. It would have been based on their core product and brought the *nix API to the Windows desktop/server. I just don't think MSFT wants ANYONE developing for non-WIN32 API's. This product will die in MSFT. Be worried when they buy MainSoft and then release MS Linux and have it forced on every PC with the MS Win32 API, MS Windows GUI and MS Exploder desktop. The OS would be OSS but not much else.....Continued control and continued restriction on innovation and competition.
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I certainly agree that Microsoft would have a real uphill battle promoting their own Unix system.
But don't assume that Microsoft will use a single strategy. They have enough money and people to send one division off to capture the Unix market while another develops NT in competition to it. Especially if they hire/buy a third party with some actual Unix experience to quietly do the work for them on the side.
If they do enter into the Unix market itself, rather than thru some form of emulation, I think it unlikely that Linux will be the vehicle. Why not take advantage of the natural ideological split in the open source community and fracture it with a BSD distribution? The BSD license allows them to immediately relicense with their usual EULA, and now they don't even have to mention Berkeley. It even runs Linux binaries and comes in three flavors: secure, portable, and compatible. What really hurts Linux is that it's a *very* good OS, and much harder to argue PHBs into switching away from.
The result of this could be that everyone has much better software that's free beer, but the open source movement is left with nothing better to do than write programs and drivers for Microsoft's omnipresent BSD. Its a better future than the present, but not where I'd like to go.
There is an "MS" product called Liquid Motion. No idea what it is though. :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I have a theory regarding Microsoft's moves here. They buy a random software company - then sit back and read Slashdot for the following day.
/. and use them to formulate a super plan to screw Linux!
/. community get to contribute. :o)
Then they collate all the conspiracy theories from the super geeks that read
"Open Source" World Domination if you like - all the members of the
This is getting embarrassing. People can't express their opinion that something might be a MS advantage without it getting scored down anymore? Let's take the blinders off...
Notepad does have a feature! F5 places a timestamp where the cursor is. Very useful for a quick and dirty log.
When I have to work in windows, I sometimes use Notepad to maintain a rough draft of my biling information - click the file, whack F5, type a few words, enter, Alt-F4.
remember, the Mac had a rabidly loyal fan base.
Is this a signal of a major shift in Microsoft's Unix strategy or just another example of the company's "buy everybody" strategem?
On might argue that Microsoft has always been involved in Unix, to varying degrees. Microsoft has already created a second-rate Unix port in the old days of the 8086.
Perhaps Microsoft is beginning a shift into the Unix market with various products, to counter Linux/BSD on the server side, but I doubt it at this time. There has been no major move by Microsoft, and I doubt this recent purchase will be much of an impact at all.
Microsoft could be preparing for some sort of Unix virtual machine to run within the NT kernel, supporting Unix apps, but performance-wise, I don't know how this could be a threat to Linux. In any case, Microsoft already has utilities that directly compete with the sort of Unix programs companies would want to run. Microsoft must still want to protect its significant investments-IIS, Exchange Server, etc.
And among the OSS community, there would be widespread derision over their apps being used on the NT platform. After all, who wants to see Sendmail, KDE, and gcc on a NT box? No word can describe the distaste one has to feel about such a setup.
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.
Jean-Paul Sartre
They're moving the poor bastards from SF to Redmond? I wonder how many employees we're talking about here? (just the "important" ones, I s'poze).
This sounds more like a "buy 'em before the competition does" maneuver, but I'm wondering who they think the competition is? And besides, doesn't Cygwin32 do the same thing, only better?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I downloaded a demo of it quite some time ago, and it was quite impressive. It was called OpenNT then, though.
It essentially chucks MS's broken POSIX layer out and replaces it with a less broken one. It seemed to work OK, though it was kinda bare-bones. No decent shells. It felt sorta like being thrown back to SVR3 days. No symlink support either.
It represents quite a threat to MS though. After all, I have a choice of writing a Win32 app and only being able to deploy it on MS platforms, or I can write a UNIX/X app and deploy it using a porting layer like this product.
I think MS are out to kill the product then, and thereby reduce the number of cross-platform porting options by.
So what? I've had cygwin for a long time, but I really don't want unix tools under windows because there are too many fundamental limitations of windows.
fundametal limitation of windows:
-- inability to create/understand a symlink
-- lack of any sort of real multiuser design, forethought, or planning (Sorry, but citrix & term svr. are HACKS!).
-- lanman/CIFS
-- NT Domain structure
-- lack of a decent command shell
(4dos/nt doesn't count, because it's not part
of the OS. Micros~1: why isn't 4nt the
default command shell???????????????)
-- lack of an integrated xserver, integrated NFS, and telnet (not just an optional, buggy unix services add-on that sort of works.)
Umm... those are big limitations. Work on those first.
Flamebait???? I'm confused. Since when is accusing Microsoft of embracing, extending and extinguishing, known as flamebait????????? Please explain...
-Chuck
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
The Mac started coming back to life when Amelio introduced the G3 processor. All of a sudden, the Mac had machines again that were comparable in speed to PCs. Then Steve Jobs added style with the iMac and the blue G3, ahd the turnaround was complete.
So, what's my point? Rabidly loyal users will stay with you as long as you're reasonably good at updating the product. If the Amiga had gone to PowerPC at about the same time as the Mac, I'd bet that there would be a viable Amiga market today.
So, what does this mean in the context of Linux? I'll bet you've already guessed - as long as Linux is updated, rabidly loyal users will continue supporting the platform.
Linux isn't going away until it gets replaced by something even better.
D
----
Check:
http://www.interix.com/press/press99/06.08.99.h
Perhaps this is the real reason MS bought Interix.
It would be a very, very shrewd move. Offer Linux compatibility in the next version of Windows.
They are just too evil. Linux for Windows. What next?
And that press release was buried...
Chris.
-- I don't have a cool sig.
What if redhat did buy vmware? They could use some of that IPO money to buy it and then include it free on the redhat "official" cds. Redhat would have more people buying their official cds, and they could gain extra revenue from selling vmware to users of other distirubtions /and buyers of the GPL'd version. It would also justify the pricing of their distibution over the rest of the distributions.
One of the groups I supported at AT&T Research authored something similar to this a couple years ago, UWIN
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/
Dave Korn of ksh fame is the main man behind it.
For yuks we benchmarked it against an identical (hardware wise) Linux system and the Linux system trounced it. Remember, you still have to go through the NT kernel and all its numerous security checks and other bloat to do system calls. This was in '96 btw, things may have changed.
I would'nt worry too much. Worry when Microsoft starts selling its own version of Linux, albeit not open sourced and with more "features". Like a 100% functional implementation of Win32.
It could just be me, but what I see here is M$ taking over a company that tries to bridge the gap between Unix and NT, but not 'to meet the needs of customers' as they would have us believe. Thing is, now, even if the workers have been telling the PHBs 'No, we can't switch, our code has to run under Unix' for months, suddenly, there's a way to turn the impossible into just the unwise. Suddenly, if someone wants a supposedly certified solution, or someone feels you can't go wrong for selecting M$, they have an option.
However, what really worries me is that I think this very much links in with the previous article about M$'s new academic strategy against Linux et al. Give universities free NT licenses, then stuff to let them port stuff to NT... maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe this is their sorta alpha-strike against Unix itself.
Then again, I'm not sure if this worries me or just makes me chuckle. I think I'll continue to laugh at them until one side wins, at which point I'll face the music. I'm not sure if I can really handle the idea that they might actually be good enough tactitions to manage something like that.
In any case, we've continuously said that they'd have to be stupid not to see what's going on. I'm not sure I like the attention we're getting, though. :)
takes "judicial notice" of recent developments, as MS has asked. All of them. This and the absorption of Visio are proof that, even though it might know better, sometimes a monopoly just can't help herself and needs some stern correction. Doesn't the resolution of Bristol's case also help to put these recent developments in a new light? The jury found that there were no hard legally relevant distinctions to be made between server and desktop software, so the continuing extension of monopoly power committed by Microsoft --Visio, Interix-- may legitimately ground legal sanctions on the distribution of Windows 2000 despite any claim from MS that it is not a "successor" OS to Windows 95 since supposedly it's not based on the Windows95 codebase.
Perfect scenario would be Microsoft shrivel up, but that's probably not going to happen. Second preference would be to port NT to *NIX. I suppose that's not going to happen either. How's that Microsoft trial going, anyway?
Theoretically, if Unix systems can be adapted to emulate Windows (WINE, Wabi, etc), then Windows can be extended to run Unix subprocesses (whether in a shell or subkernel), especially if the source code is widely available. Given Moore's Law and assuming a factor of 100% overhead, then you should be able to execute today's programs with comparable performance on cutting-edge processors in 2 years time (which should please certain chip-makers). An ascetic might disprove of the bloat but then storage is reducing in price even faster than CPUs. Given the shortage of human talent and that software development is the time consuming component, then it makes financial sense, even if you have to fork out thousands for a faster CPU.
... ummm (yeah) .... zealous and dedicated marketeers. The question to the wider IT community should be does Linux or Microsoft offer the best value solution in the long-term assuming it is possible to cross-port between the two?
Given two equivalent OS markets, if it is easier to port from one to the other than vice-versa, then over time the asymetric flow will benefit the lower cost solution (think game theory, think thermodynamics and the flow of heat from high to low regions). As this is a structural shift (ignoring any short-term pricing tactics), it will only become obvious in the long-term.
As others have noted, Microsoft is composed of some very smart people, savvy managers and
LL