OSNews

The author notes that SFU is a subsystem whereas Cygwin is an emulation layer, then goes on to say that Cygwin can bring down the whole system, whereas SFU won't. Can anyone comment on Cygwin bringing down the system? I'm not criticizing the author, just wondering why an emulation layer can bring down the system when a subsystem won't.

I think he meant that a crash within Cygwin can potentially bring down all of Cygwin, not the entire system. But it's hard to say, I've never had Cygwin fail on me that way, but I only use its tools and rarely compile code with it.

I'm interested in how SFU handles the NFS shares. Its the only "free" system that I know of that offers an NFS client for Windows.

Shame they don't offer an X Windows server as well, but that was a strategic decision I think.

" I think he meant that a crash within Cygwin can potentially bring down all of Cygwin, not the entire system. But it's hard to say, I've never had Cygwin fail on me that way, but I only use its tools and rarely compile code with it. "

Sorry I should have been more precise. That is exactly what I meant. With Cygwin when compiling or developing code if you have a crash inside of CYGWIN, it Will bring down CYGWIN, not the entire system. Sorry for the confusion and Cygwin has failed on me a couple of times, as I had stated they were some curses apps I did inside of Cygwin and SFU and it seemed to me that Cygwin would crash if it didnt like something. SFU would just shut down the process more like a true UNIX environment would.

Any specific reasons for it not to boot on XP Home???

B/c most business running Windows and UNIX aren't using the Crippled XP Home Edition. If they have a Windows Domain, they have to use Professional b/c Home Edition cannot join a Windows Domain.

Its nice to open a command shell and type ksh and the prompt and get the $. Having most of the traditional tools like cat and more is handy as hell. I always find myself typing ls at a windows command shell its nice to see that work now.

And Yes, I know is says that it's an "emulation layer" on the mainpage of the website.

The Cygwin DLL is an implementation of UNIX APIs on Windows. Just like Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) is an implementation of the Win32 API on UNIX.

Just because Cygwin can't handle errors properly doesn't mean it's an emulator. It just has crappy error handling code.

As for SFU being a "subsystem" I don't think so. I have SFU 3.0 and I haven't used it much, but it's just some shells with UNIX tools, some libraries, and an NIS server. While it may integrate better with Windows than Cygwin, it is not a subsystem anymore than IIS or Exchange are subsystems.

Ok, SFU is a "subsystem." Next time I'll read the docs before I speak. ;-)

But I still don't feel Cygwin is an emulator, just an API implementation.

This review was alright, although I felt that several points were missed or not entirely correct. Rather that go through them all, I will add one thing.

X11 is not available under SFU and won't be, because the needed graphics layer is not implemented. You could however compile and run apps under SFU that display on an X server somewhere else, or even on the same machine, if you purchase a separate X11 product, like Hummingbird.

Interesting about the Cygwin, I was not aware that it all runs under a single process (or the processes are somehow attached to each other in a way that causes them to crash together).

Also, the link to your homepage is broken at the end.

RJD's site is here:
http://www.geocities.com/rjdohnert
(not currently viewable though, because of bandwidth limits)

Roberto, if you're looking for a new host, email me, trashcan at hotmail.

Tasty review, and the screenshots were a nice touch (although some shots of fvwm running on a Windows desktop would have been really cool).

I find it interesting that you were able to integrate with just about every version of Unix alive except for OS X. This begs the question, do you think that this is Interix' fault or is it Apple's fault? And the follow up, how well does OS X integrate with all of the other Unices out there (really well I would imagine)?

I have been goofing around with bochs latetly and successfully got Minix to run. Although somewhat different i wouldn't mind seeing a detailed review of Bochs on windows and how it compairs to running cygwin and others.

I think NT has serveral sub systems - Win32, Posix, OS2 and now SFU. But M$ may have thrown out Posix and OS2 lately.

The Windows GUI is within Win32 subsystem, so SFU would not be able to (or very hard to) call cross subsystem boundry for GUI things like an X server.

A sub system is on top of the NT kernel, and within the user space. Light weight RPC is the communication channel that bridge sub system and the NT kernel together. So a subsytem crash would not bring down the whole system or affect other subsystem. In theory, if win32 subsystem craped out, SFU should be OK and vise vera.

(However, M$ did push some user space functions into the kernel mode for speed up, mostly GDI related things)

We tried this one as well as Cygwin/X at work. we were in no way satisfied with SFU:
I installed SFU on a 2GHZ P4, 512MB Ram Machine. After reboot the additional Unix-Layer kinda added about 40% more CPU-Load to my System. After uninstalling it the CPU-Load was gone.
It doesn't include an X-Server / Client. So using X-Applications is impossible. It doesn't include SSH Client and it doesn't include configure or make. Thus, with the lack of make and configure it was quite difficult to compile anything (like for example ssh).
Cygwin/X, on the other hand, came with a nice wm (twm), an X-Server / Client, configure, make, a shitload of utilities and didn't add CPU-Load to my system in any way.
Both systems (cygwin as well as sfu) did allow me to see / use Windows-Tasks just like Unix-Tasks (i.e. using ps i could gather Task-information).
Something i couldn't achieve in Cygwin but achieved in SFU though was the ability to access the complete Windows-Filesystem though i.E. the bash. I couldn't find it mounted or something like that in Cygwin - does anyone know if it's possible to achieve that?

It was mspaint, I tell you! See top output:

http://img.osnews.com/img/5751/sfu35-3.jpg

Nice article.

1) csh and ksh are configured with 'vi' keybindings by default, though 'emacs' bindings work as well. The point being, if you hit 'up-arrow,' and then 'back-arrow' and try to edit your previous, you may get beeped at, but that does not mean anything is wrong.

2) I am 90% sure and ssh client is included, in any event, I installed OpenSSH from the 'Tools' warehouse at Interop Systems right after I installed, and have both an ssh client and server running. (Tip, the sshd startup script on my system was broken after installation, so it might need edited on others as well. Among other problems, sshd was in /usr/local/sbin while the script pointed to /usr/local/bin

3) I don't know about load, as on my system SFU 3.5 is just idling w/o any problems. CPU usage at the moment is 00%, and memory usage is:

inetd 400K
cron 524K
init 528K
syslogd 540K
zzInterix 564K
sshd 852K
PSXRUN 1460K
PSXSS 3796K

All told, less that the ~12M that the Kiwi syslog daemon I was running earlier took. However, I have to admit, I think Kiwi's tab separated output is nicer that syslog std.

Stop spreading FUD.

OpenSSH is right here on this page (free download)...
http://www.interix.com/tools/warehouse.htm

Using X apps is not "impossible". Contrary, the X11R6.6 client libraries are included by default and function with any remote X server. Interop Systems sells Hummingbird X Server for SFU, for example. FVWM has already been ported to Interix and is available at the above link.

No configure or make? Are you blind or what?

Something i couldn't achieve in Cygwin but achieved in SFU though was the ability to access the complete Windows-Filesystem though i.E. the bash. I couldn't find it mounted or something like that in Cygwin - does anyone know if it's possible to achieve that?

In bash try

cd C:

and you should find yourself in the regular windows fs. It has a strange absolute cygwin path which I don't remember. I actually was so unsatisfied with cygwin that I now run FreeBSD inside vmware! Two things annoyed me about cygwin, the lack of a proper xterm *with antialiased fonts*, and the lack of ported software using the cygwin package system. Something like *fink* for cygwin would be cool, since the cygwin package system just doesn't cut it.

Sorry to be off topic but what XP skin are you using and what is the name of the app that is running vertically on the right side?

Back on topic.

I can imagine this is good for CS students who have to learn UNIX programming and UNIX commands.

Also I remember at Uni I was given example code from my lecturer, it compiled fine on the Solaris machine at Uni but on Redhat 9 at home it would compile. Although I adjust the headers it was still not successful.

I guess with SFU it will compile.

I use bash in Cygwin every day and almost never open a DOS window. I like being able to parse with gawk and sed at the command line and still open windows GUIs by running their executables.

<quote>
Something i couldn't achieve in Cygwin but achieved in SFU though was the ability to access the complete Windows-Filesystem though i.E. the bash. I couldn't find it mounted or something like that in Cygwin - does anyone know if it's possible to achieve that?
</quote>

Yes you can do that you can get at remote shares that you have permission to with something like:

mount -t "\\myserverc$directory" /test

which will create a text mount (files are considered text file) in your mount table or you can juse change to the directory with

cd "\\serverc$somedir"

on the network.

Cygwin is the best Unix-on-Windows I have ever seen. Use anything else and you are jsut wasting you time!!!

but on Redhat 9 at home it would not compile.

I have just started using http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ on a windows 2000 box at work. They are native binaries that don't need an emulation layer. It may not be a complete unix environment but I get all the tools I miss from unix.

>> Something i couldn't achieve in Cygwin but achieved in SFU though was the ability to access the complete Windows-Filesystem though i.E. the bash. I couldn't find it mounted or something like that in Cygwin - does anyone know if it's possible to achieve that?

cd /cygdrive
ls

This should list the current drives (so you can "cd /cygdrive/c" to get to your windows c: drive).

Cheers

Dan

actually I am the other way around; I like the dos prompt quite a bit, and wish there was a 'dos' shell for linux.

Strange or what?

" Sorry to be off topic but what XP skin are you using and what is the name of the app that is running vertically on the right side? "

The app that is running vertically on the side is called the sidebar

http://www.desktopsidebar.com/

The theme is Longhorn Aero from Themexp.org. You have to have a program called StyleXP in order to use it unfortunately the program is not free, but you get a free demo. The desktop image is from my website.

" actually I am the other way around; I like the dos prompt quite a bit, and wish there was a 'dos' shell for linux.

Strange or what? "

I did do a shell like that at one time that I called DSH, send me your e-mail address and I will look on my drives to see if I still got the source. It was written for NeXTStep, but I did do a port to Linux. The reason why I stopped distribution was because I didnt know if that was an infringment and I got so much hatemail and flames from people that I took it down. Im sure its probably still on the net somewhere, I dont know if the Linux version is but Im sure the NeXT version is.

Thanks for the info on the theme and app.

DOS-like shell for UNIX (although I can't imagine why):
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/shells/lsh

From the article:
For those of you waiting for Microsoft Linux forget it. I doubt we will ever see it.

Who in blazes is waiting for Microsoft Linux?

Yes but what I really tried to figure out was exactly in what way the home edition is crippled for running SFU??? Is SFU depending on being logged on to a domain?

Since it's free I was figuring why not for all 2k+XP editions???

"...Cygwin is the best Unix-on-Windows I have ever seen. Use anything else and you are just wasting you time!!!"

LOL! SFU is currently in the running as a finalist for "best of show" at the LinuxWorld Expo right now (in the area of "best integration software"). It will probably win again, just like it did last year.

SFU pretty much kills Cygwin for any serious Unix-on-Windows requirements. Even LinuxWorld admits that.

Great article. I had been looking for a comparison between SFU and Cygwin so very good timing...

The idea of MS Linux begs a certain question. I agree with the following article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1400161,00.asp

It doesn't look like MS would have their own Linux distro any time soon (the only way that happens is if the cost of maintaining their proprietary code for OS/Office becomes unfavorable when compared to the revenue they take in) but it does look like they are trying to find ways to "embrace and extend" Linux/Open Source or at least coexist. Their moves with Virtual PC and SFU demonstrate their desire to not get locked out of environments with a substantial and/or increasing Unix/OSS/Linux investment (and hopefully win some converts to Windows in the process). For example, both products require you have AT LEAST 1 Windows license - on SFU this is obvious whereas on Virtual PC it doesn't allow you to use a non-Windows server as the host OS (but you can use anything as a guest).

As to the author's closing statement:
My only hope is that people do not snub SFU just because it is an Microsoft product but rather embrace it and use it and support Microsoft for their efforts.

My response is that it's good to see MS working toward interoperability (with a solid product too) but potential customers are definitely going to question their long-term commitment. For example, Cygwin is likely to be supported indefinitely whereas MS could pull the plug at any time on SFU. Too many customers believe MS does what is good for MS and MS's platforms - backward compatibility and a customer's prior investment notwithstanding. Anyone seen MS Internet Explorer for Unix recently? I rest my case.

For example, Cygwin is likely to be supported indefinitely whereas MS could pull the plug at any time on SFU.

In all seriousness, a dedicated client group could keep SFU going -- the essence of it is the POSIX subsystem, since that is implemented and GCC is available the options are endless. You are corrent that port will keep coming for Cygwin. I don't know the status of the Interop Systems Interix archive with relation to Microsoft, but they seem fairly dedicated to making SFU useful.

Anyone seen MS Internet Explorer for Unix recently?

Heh, not quite the same, but: http://www.opsys.com/products/sco/ (scroll to the bottom of the page)

Actually, MSFT dropped that product because pretty much nobody was interested in using it. All the Unices were running Netscape or Mozilla and such and no-one would touch IE, just as you would expect, really. This is probably the same case for OS X as well. Even though it used to be the default browser installed, Mac users and Apple are probably glad to be rid of it and to have Safari now.

I just don't think it is quite fair to compare SFU with a product like IE for Unix (which was ported directly from the Windows version using the MKS cross-platform tookit - it was not even a real native Unix app!) that had virtually no demand whatsoever before it died anyway.

I actually used that and the Windows Media Player on Solaris. They were about the same quality of the Mac versions at the time. It was indeed a shame MS cut that product because it was pretty good.

Good points J.Edwards and Gil Bates. My example of IE for Unix is probably a bit extreme - my point was that there is the perception that MS has not always taken the greatest care to maintain backward compatibility and support for older products - especially ones hosted on competing platforms (example - now that the browser war is won - IE support for Mac wasn't too important either).

If MS was to somehow coopt Unix-like OSes by using SFU...
OR fail miserably trying to do so...
then history suggests MS probably won't have too many second thoughts about potentially stranding customers who incorporated SFU into their strategies when MS changes its mind later and drops support (or stops building it into newer versions of Windows).

Nothing against Interop Systems, but if MS drops support for SFU, I doubt too many enterprises would consider it a viable option to buy their support from them and/or develop in-house expertise to support SFU. Cygwin, on the other hand, is supported by a vendor most enterprises are familiar with (Red Hat) who isn't likely to drop support (or is probably perceived that way at least).

Interesting that Word for Unix is still around... I wonder how much usage that is getting these days...

On a side note - since someone was looking for a DOS shell for Linux - assuming I remember my history right, I believe it was Caldera who bought DR-DOS and then released the code into the wild (OpenDOS - no idea which opensource license it used). What is the irony of Caldera having been bought by SCO and therefore SCO having the legacy of having created an opensource OS? In theory, SCO might be able to sue any OpenDOS users (assuming they exist) for use of code that SCO released!

Just curious, anyone know what happened to OpenDOS? Did a search and can't find a thing on it - just some dead links to Caldera.

OpenDOS continues to be supported and enhanced to this day.

http://www.drdosprojects.de/

It also appears that SCO sold the rights to OpenDOS to DeviceLogics

http://www.drdos.com/

Who create embedded DOS solutions for ATMS,POS and what such

Actually, MSFT dropped that product because pretty much nobody was interested in using it. All the Unices were running Netscape or Mozilla and such and no-one would touch IE, just as you would expect, really. This is probably the same case for OS X as well. Even though it used to be the default browser installed, Mac users and Apple are probably glad to be rid of it and to have Safari now.

Why would one expect UNIX people not to touch IE for UNIX? I used it and it was crap, when I mean crap, it made Netscape 4.xx series look half good. From the slow performance to the crap stability, it was a nightmare in every definition of what nightmare is.

Don't get my started about Media Player, if there was ever a reason to give Microsoft employees a public flogging, this would it.

About the only positive spin, if possible, was that Mainsoft was able to get their product into the limelight long enough for people to realise that because they've developed their application to Windows doesn't mean that they're completely screwed to the point of non-portability.

I just don't think it is quite fair to compare SFU with a product like IE for Unix (which was ported directly from the Windows version using the MKS cross-platform tookit - it was not even a real native Unix app!) that had virtually no demand whatsoever before it died anyway.

Oh, there was interest, however, when you start getting, "the bloody thing can't even run Java!" and "I opened up Outlook Express and the whole thing keeled over", one kind of gives up on giving IE/OE a try.

Im sorry you had such bad luck with it, I enjoyed the products and didnt have not one of the problems you stated. Funny how different systems will give different results.

I have had lots of processes crash (notably, the X server and links), and my Cygwin shells never seem to be affected. They keep right on trucking. If I look at process explorer, or run top, all of the cygwin processes are separate. They share a common runtime DLL, but I have never experienced this common-crash syndrome described earlier.

My comments on IE for Unix were all based on second-hand information. I have never actually used it and my personal opinion is just based on what I have been told and read about it. I think ChocolateCheeseCake is the person you are referring to with specific gripes in mind.

As for SFU's long-term viability, there are rumors that MSFT will automatically include SFU by default in future versions of Windows because they bought the specific rights to do exactly this from SCO in addition to the basic rights to some of the the System V code they (apparently) used. Although, if SFU is (mostly?) OpenBSD based, I'm not sure why they had to get involved with SCO anyway...I guess MSFT is taking code from anywhere it can find it or just being cautious.

Hey Gil,

From what I hear, The reason why MS took that license is because according to the BSD Lawsuit, certain core components of the BSD kernels can only be shipped in Binary form. Microsft needed access to the source code, so they went ahead and took the license so that they could use it. This is what I heard, I dont know how true it is I dont know but it sounds reasonable to me. Yes they are going to incorporate UNIX functionality into Windows Server and client in the future. They are bringing back command line functionality, and they are doing this because of feedback from the Linux and UNIX communities. We will see how this plays out soon but I feel, personally that Microsft is actually making a concerted effort to cooperate and please consumers. Also, from what I hear, mind you this is rumor, that Microsft intend to do with the consumer retail version of Longhorn what they allow educational customers to do now. You get to install Windows and Office on 3 machines instead of one for non-commercial use. Business customers and Server edition licensing will not change at all. But as I said thats shop talk and the validity of that is unconfirmed. But at PDC when I asked about it they were tight lipped about licensing which makes me think they are waiting to see what happens from now until Longhorn ships, just as they are being tight lipped about what the final name will be. I asked what that was going to be as well.:)

Why SFU can't be installed on XP Home Edition you ask?

For the very same reason you can't log XPHE to a Domain, or install, say, a DHCP server on it.

Because uncle Bill decided against it.
If an activity is even VAGUELY related to office, business, or corporate networking it is DISABLED on XP Home. Probably the sales rep in Redmond realized that people (like the place I work) are still using win95 clients to log to NT4 domains these days... if they didn't force the upgrade some way their cash flow would be hurt, one day or another...

XP Home actually has LESS networking and office/business related functionalities than Win95. It's just a toy to use for running games at home... or for email/websurfing/docwriting, but if you only do those, better switch to linux or osx and live without the expense AND hassle of antivirus+windowsupdate...

Bye, and have fun,
Renato

I installed SFU on a 2GHZ P4, 512MB Ram Machine. After reboot the additional Unix-Layer kinda added about 40% more CPU-Load to my System. After uninstalling it the CPU-Load was gone.

Oh, c'mon. That's nonsense. It does take a few seconds to invoke the SFU subsystem but, after that, it runs just fine.

" I installed SFU on a 2GHZ P4, 512MB Ram Machine. After reboot the additional Unix-Layer kinda added about 40% more CPU-Load to my System. After uninstalling it the CPU-Load was gone. "

I dobt SFU did that. Try the product befoire you write something negative and misinformative.

Gee, they do call it XP Home. Why would you think it should be suitable for business? Disabling features in software to match a price point is hardly a Microsoft only business practice.

"It's just a toy to use for running games at home... or for email/websurfing/docwriting, but if you only do those, better switch to linux or osx and live without the expense AND hassle of antivirus+windowsupdate..."

If you consider home operating systems "toy's" you should be using Linux.

"Gee, they do call it XP Home. Why would you think it should be suitable for business? Disabling features in software to match a price point is hardly a Microsoft only business practice. "

Bah, if you think selling a dumbed down version of win2000 that does LESS than Win95 at... uhm.. 350EUR circa, last time I checked in a mall is fair, go on, buy 2 copies ^___^

"If you consider home operating systems "toy's" you should be using Linux."

I do, actually. ;-P
And if you don't think something that looks like Fisher Price product suitable mostly to play games is a toy, I don't know what is!

Bye, and have fun,
Renato

In the article you mentioned that python versions for sfu
are available from interop as well as from activestate.
Unfortunately the version from interop is outdated and with activestate I don't find a version for SFU. Or do you think of one the Unix versions at activestate?