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.
"
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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 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.
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.
Reminds me of a usenet .signature I saw a while ago:
"Given enough time and money, eventually Microsoft will re-invent UNIX."
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Another excellent free beer editor for Windows text (and HTML) is Notetab . Emacs for DOS is also available from DJGPP.
[humor]Well for their sake I hope they don't opensource notepad. Its their only quality non-buggy product.[/humor]
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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