Whoa -
OK, I agree that MS is rather careful. Serious questions for you:
1) In 1996, MS shipped the POSIX virtual environment from NutCracker, which can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "clean room code" WRT open source GPL products. In their zeal to avoid breaching the UNIX source copyright, the NutCracker team relied heavily upon open source for hints, pointers, behaviors, etc. Yes, they were also working to the IEEE 1003.1 spec, BUT they also wanted "UNIX" behavior. I know Pat Higby pretty well, and he is NO STRANGER to open source code.
2) MS has a huge team in India working on the services for Unix product line that runs on NT. Do you believe that this rather large team has no access to open source code? Who controls it? Is it the same manager in India who "controlled" the Excel team when a programmer put a mini version of flight simulator inside the shipping product?
3) What about the Interix product I mentioned above. The Interix team (prior to purchase by MS in June 1999) opennly stated, in writing, that the untilities shipped with Interix were based on open source. What happened to NEVER using open source?
Serious comments, from persons with actual data, are appreciated. Opinions will go to/dev/null.
-Bluto
I have no knowledge that they have, BUT...
I know, for a fact, that many of the utilities that M$ bought with Interix are 100% based upon open source. The Interix team clearly knows the nuances of open source, but do they honor the "source code on deman" rules??? Unknown to me.
It is GRAMMAR not GRAMMeR.
Want a real reason?
Every operating system in history has tended to be strong either as a Client or a Server. I have a formal background in math and computer engineering, and I know of no theoretical reason why this is so, but I have some opinions concerning the pragmatic reasons.
The fact is that the kids at Microsoft have really focused on making Windows a competitor to MacOS in the past. MacOS is particularly strong as a Client (as I climb into my asbestos suit) it is weak as a server. The boys and girls at MS, tending to lack orginality, basically cloned the MacOS with the caveats that they were stuck with a MS-DOS heritage. Windows (which I use often, and dislike) is a successful Client OS. It is a ROTTEN Server OS.
UNIX derived systems derived from mini-computer OS thinking (with a LOT of very original ideas added). UNIX and LINUX are SUBERB at Server applications and (asbestos suit zipped up to the nose here) not quite as good as a Client OS. While I personally would rather use UNIX / LINUX as a Client, it is because I am a programmer. I am forced to admit that the typical college student finds Windows easier to use than UNIX systems. Far better that they should all use Macs, but I am not in charge of that.
So, long winded background later...
YOU should learn UNIX / LINUX because the world has seen VERY little innovation in Client software in the last 5 years (honest). There is a limit function to client software that DOES NOT EXIST in server software. This is because as Clients become more complex, they become less stable, etc. (See elsewhere for Thick Client discussions.)
In constrast to this, SERVER software is in a renaissance. UNIX / LINUX is the premier and OPEN server environment - ipso facto, YOU should learn UNIX / LINUX.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa - OK, I agree that MS is rather careful. Serious questions for you: 1) In 1996, MS shipped the POSIX virtual environment from NutCracker, which can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "clean room code" WRT open source GPL products. In their zeal to avoid breaching the UNIX source copyright, the NutCracker team relied heavily upon open source for hints, pointers, behaviors, etc. Yes, they were also working to the IEEE 1003.1 spec, BUT they also wanted "UNIX" behavior. I know Pat Higby pretty well, and he is NO STRANGER to open source code. 2) MS has a huge team in India working on the services for Unix product line that runs on NT. Do you believe that this rather large team has no access to open source code? Who controls it? Is it the same manager in India who "controlled" the Excel team when a programmer put a mini version of flight simulator inside the shipping product? 3) What about the Interix product I mentioned above. The Interix team (prior to purchase by MS in June 1999) opennly stated, in writing, that the untilities shipped with Interix were based on open source. What happened to NEVER using open source? Serious comments, from persons with actual data, are appreciated. Opinions will go to /dev/null.
-Bluto
I have no knowledge that they have, BUT ...
I know, for a fact, that many of the utilities that M$ bought with Interix are 100% based upon open source. The Interix team clearly knows the nuances of open source, but do they honor the "source code on deman" rules??? Unknown to me.
It is GRAMMAR not GRAMMeR. Want a real reason? Every operating system in history has tended to be strong either as a Client or a Server. I have a formal background in math and computer engineering, and I know of no theoretical reason why this is so, but I have some opinions concerning the pragmatic reasons. The fact is that the kids at Microsoft have really focused on making Windows a competitor to MacOS in the past. MacOS is particularly strong as a Client (as I climb into my asbestos suit) it is weak as a server. The boys and girls at MS, tending to lack orginality, basically cloned the MacOS with the caveats that they were stuck with a MS-DOS heritage. Windows (which I use often, and dislike) is a successful Client OS. It is a ROTTEN Server OS. UNIX derived systems derived from mini-computer OS thinking (with a LOT of very original ideas added). UNIX and LINUX are SUBERB at Server applications and (asbestos suit zipped up to the nose here) not quite as good as a Client OS. While I personally would rather use UNIX / LINUX as a Client, it is because I am a programmer. I am forced to admit that the typical college student finds Windows easier to use than UNIX systems. Far better that they should all use Macs, but I am not in charge of that. So, long winded background later ...
YOU should learn UNIX / LINUX because the world has seen VERY little innovation in Client software in the last 5 years (honest). There is a limit function to client software that DOES NOT EXIST in server software. This is because as Clients become more complex, they become less stable, etc. (See elsewhere for Thick Client discussions.)
In constrast to this, SERVER software is in a renaissance. UNIX / LINUX is the premier and OPEN server environment - ipso facto, YOU should learn UNIX / LINUX.