PDA

View Full Version : Unix to beef up Longhorn


MacBytes
Jul 12, 2004, 06:58 PM
Category: Microsoft
Link: Unix to beef up Longhorn (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040712195841)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

nagromme
Jul 12, 2004, 08:41 PM
"Microsoft is set to include its Services for Unix (SFU) add-on for Windows as an integral part of the next major release of the Windows server operating system, codenamed Longhorn and expected in2008. Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems."

Once again, MS holds out the promise that "things will get better, honest... stick with us!"

jsw
Jul 12, 2004, 08:55 PM
2008... can you even imagine where we will be by then? And any Mac you buy today will probably run the current Mac OS then. Can't say the same about Windows boxes....

blue&whiteman
Jul 12, 2004, 09:08 PM
it never fails to amaze me how much ms copies apple. for pretty much the entire life of the mac apple has had and used tech that ms implements 3-5 years later. this is why I normally just laugh when pc users knock mac. they prefer an ugly ripoff of older tech.

ALoLA
Jul 12, 2004, 11:32 PM
"Microsoft is set to include its Services for Unix (SFU) add-on for Windows as an integral part of the next major release of the Windows server operating system, codenamed Longhorn and expected in2008. Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems."

Once again, MS holds out the promise that "things will get better, honest... stick with us!"


Include an add-on as an integral part? Does that seem like a contradiction to anyone? :)

bousozoku
Jul 12, 2004, 11:50 PM
It's only a way to make UNIX applications dependent on Windows facilties the way Visual J++ used the WFC to try to sideline Java applications.

Can you hear the conversation? "...but I was did this and it worked on Windows Server with SFU. Why doesn't Sun/HP/IBM/Apple support it? This is UNIX, isn't it? UNIX should be able to run UNIX applications."

ITR 81
Jul 12, 2004, 11:52 PM
2008??

It use to be 2007.

I guess by the time they release it, it will be 2010.

By 2008 I'm sure most Macs will have G5 or G6's and OS 11.

suntzu
Jul 13, 2004, 03:48 AM
If I may play conspiracy theorist for a second:

Remember when the world found out about SCO being given money by Microsoft for its attack on Linux? Well, things are starting to make sense. You see, if Microsoft backs SCO and they win, then they would be allowed to distribute SFU with the OS and perhaps receive a nice discount for it too. As it says in the article:

"SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software."

By backing the company that wants open-source dead, Microsoft has not only made a deal that has the potential to make lots of money but also kill a lot of the Unix systems out there.

For example. SCO takes out Linux. Microsoft uses SFU and makes it so that developers use microsoft-esq code. Microsoft takes out SCO, leaving it an even bigger player in the game.

Of course Microsoft has been known to screw things up so I wouldn't worry too much. Just to be on the safe side though: "I told you so!" ;)

blue&whiteman
Jul 13, 2004, 05:27 AM
longhorn coding team on loan from google:

iMeowbot
Jul 13, 2004, 05:57 AM
If I may play conspiracy theorist for a second:

Remember when the world found out about SCO being given money by Microsoft for its attack on Linux? Well, things are starting to make sense. You see, if Microsoft backs SCO and they win, then they would be allowed to distribute SFU with the OS and perhaps receive a nice discount for it too. As it says in the article:

"SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software."

The statement in the article is actually false (the press gets this stuff wrong all the time). What you can't do is mix GPL code into an individual program without releasing its source code, but including it in the same collection as proprietary software is fine. For example, OS X contains quite a few GPL programs, but huge chunks of OS X are still very proprietary. The same is true of most commercial Unix variants.
By backing the company that wants open-source dead, Microsoft has not only made a deal that has the potential to make lots of money but also kill a lot of the Unix systems out there.
Keep in mind that MS are already giving away SFU free of charge today, and it really hasn't turned too many heads. It's a good product, and does make life easier in mixed-platform environments, but no way is it a Unix killer or even a real substitute for Unix. There are fundamental differences between the way Unix and NT work, in security, process management, filesystems and networking. Programs written to use Unix behavior (SUS is a lot more than POSIX) can and do choke when the underlying OS is changed. Most (not all) Unix functionality can be replicated on top of NT, but the glue code hiding the differences does introduce significant performance penalties.

You can get faithful UNIX/Linux behavior hosted under Windows by using methods like VMWare or Virtual PC, but that's not what SFU does, and you lose most of the integration that SFU offers by doing it that way.

cb911
Jul 13, 2004, 07:25 AM
longhorn coding team on loan from google:

LOL :D no wonder they've got lots of work to do. paying their employees Rupees wasn't cheap enough, now they're just gone to paying bread crumbs, and that doesn't get the best programmers. :p

shamino
Jul 14, 2004, 01:00 PM
I understand that the press isn't technically savvy enough to grasp the difference here, but....

Longhorn is not going to be based on UNIX, nor will it be anything like a UNIX system.

SFU is Windows port of many popular UNIX utilities (like grep, awk, sed, etc.) intended to allow UNIX scripts to run. I think it also includes some DLL files to allow you to compile UNIX code into Windows apps.

This is similar to what the Cygnus and MKS utilities have done for over 10 years now. It doesn't change a thing about the Windows architecture.