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.
MS to Highlight Unix Services in Windows Server R2
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
You could just install a real Unix system and avoid the proprietary Microseft XP system. A good admin doesn’t need a silly GUI and Microseft relies on proprietary protocols that are neither standard nor compatible with Unix.
why would this be a -2,, he speaks the truth.
This is a fact, poster should be modded up.
someone is going to throw a keyboard at them soon as they step up on stage
Why a telnet server? SSH would be infinitely more useful.
Yes, that post SHOULD be modded up but apparently there are not enough people here who are able to face the truth. It is sad how many fanatic pro M$ posts there have been lately.
so anyone who doesn’t rate up a fanatic pro unix poster is a fanatic ms user?
get a life. there are some of us non fanatics left, sorry about that.
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.
Errr.. Edit to my last sentence:
<blockquote>It is a tool to use when reformatting and installing Linux doesn’t make sense.</blockquote>
Sorry for submitting before completion of thought.
LOL what was fanatic about the OP’s post? Is not what he said factual? If you dispute his comment, then please bring facts and examples and not just some lame accusation of him/her being a fanatical unix user.
I see no facts in the original post. Only misguided opinion.
The whiners are back, suggesting, trying to manipulate, trying to sound serious in their suggestion, virtually begging people to use Unix instead of Windows.
Here is a clue: People still use Windows Server 2003. It was rated as Number 1 server OS on OSNews as well as other sites. They are adding capabilities for people who like to use command line so whats the big deal? It will win #1 server OS even this year and next year.
So whiners, why you always make a fool of yourself? Or it is just in-born in you? Like may be your parents brought you up to be a whiner and nothing else?
These are just kids… They probably don’t even know what SFU really is. Go back to playing Doom.
..about ABM shills bashing SFU is the fact that it won top product awards at LINUXWORLD.
HELLO!
I bet most real admins would point their finger and laugh at a silly comment like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Been saying it since 1995 when NT was released.
“given enough time and money, microsoft will eventually invent Unix.” (“and call it innovation” – modern add-on)
You do realize that Microsoft use to sell Unix as a license. It was a 16bit version I think they licensed from SCO. Further, NT is based on VMS and has had a posix compatibility layer. Services for Unix is actually rather old, but it is slowly becoming more integrated.
SFU is an innovation because it integrates with Windows, future versions should be able to make a wide range of system calls. A ps command will likely no longer give you task running within the Korn (or other shell) but rather all task running on the system. This would be similar to get-process under MSH. It likely could become as accessible as a DOS personality compoenent ontop of the NT kernel.
Here are two articles for anyone who has an interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Services_for_Unix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSH_%28shell%29
It, however, by itself is by no means as powerful as a typical GNU/Linux or any of the various BSD installs. It might be interesting to see if a few developers would port typical GNU applications to work within SFU (like apt-get), but only time will tell.
On a side note: Our company got burned with buying Dell servers. Their service contracts are through the roof and the hardware is so flaky that you depend on constant service. In the meantime we’ve started trials with Linux based servers and the results are encouraging: The uptimes are near %100 and performance couldn’t be better which most likely means any future machines will be Linux servers and my job is getting a whole lot easier.