At this week's LinuxWorld conference, Microsoft officials are slated to talk up the Services for Unix features that the company is integrating into the Windows Server 2003 R2.
Post a Comment
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-11
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-26
There exists now a contest to mod the original post either up or down, based on personal feelings toward Microsoft's business practices? Comments like that one are off-topic, and just asking for flames. It also complains about "Proprietary Microsoft", yet fails to recognize the proprietary Unix which it touts so highly.
As for Microsoft's SFU, I use it on the Windows machine I use here at work. I don't have Unix or Linux, and this is a nice tool to help me feel at home and work in a powerful command environment and do some simple scripts. It is a tool to use when reformatting and installing Linux.
Member since:2005-07-26
Member since:2005-08-09
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
SFU provides a POSIX subsystem, which is a *native* extension of the OS itself, just like win32 is, and *not* an slow emulator like cygwin.
It comes with a bunch of GNU utils and a build environment based on BSD.
I used it extensively while learning POSIX API, since all linux dev tools look like crap, and none can compare to Ultraedit-32 & Visual Studio 
Basically any POSIX-compatible app can be built from sources....see what these guys offer:
http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm
POSIX environment subsystem was removed since winXP, in order to reduce attack surface, although some shitty version is present in win2k.
SFU is really a great product, and i think it should be more marketed. cygwin is much more popular, but is just a plain shitty emulator.
Member since:---
SFU provides a POSIX subsystem, which is a *native* extension of the OS itself, just like win32 is, and *not* an slow emulator like cygwin.
Cygwin is an emulator? Do tell. That's news to me. I'm all ears.
Go ahead...evidence if you've got it. Please keep idle speculation to yourself and use standard definitions not the ones that come out of lower orifices/body cavities.
Member since:
---
OS that runs on one kind of equipment, based on a desktop OS not designed *around* multiple user environments and security. Requires add-on patch to interact peacefully with UNIX. Expensive. Outnumbered 8-1 by competition, yet the most hacked server OS out there.
OS with 30 years experience managing multiple users, security and server work, built to open standards. Ported to multiple platforms. Available in commercial and open source versions. Highly scalable.
Clone of above OS, reconfigurable for virtually any purpose, suited to similar tasks, also highly scalable. Ported to every platform with a MMU, and some that don't. Available in commercial and free distributions, with comparable technical support for commercial distros.
Assume I'm a new business with zero prior lock-in on any platform (and managing my finances/email with a desktop box running Windows/Office doesn't count). What, exactly, does Microsoft have to offer me? A preconfigured, loaded Dell server costs the same as an equally configured XServe. My company could test the waters with a Linux box, and if it doesn't scale efficiently, the transition to a FreeBSD box doesn't represent a loss on investment or radical change in infrastructure.
MS makes good Office software. I like it, I use it. They beat WordPerfect fair and square. The rest of their software speaks for itself.
Member since:
---
Is it that hard to understand that?
Does it mean these customers will move their apps from UNIX to Windows Server? No. It means these customers get it easier with an environment that consist of both UNIX and Windows Server.
Why don't they run only UNIX instead?
Because UNIX doesn't do everything that they want to get out of the total. You use what you consider best for the tasks at hand.
Why not run only Windows then?
Pretty much same reason, but here also comes the question of critical applications that would take way too much time and resources to port to Windows even if possible.
And finally... Why not move everything to Linux!?
Uh... if they could move everything to Linux, they would more likely stick to their UNIX and move everything there instead.
Member since:
2005-07-06
