This document illustrates guidelines and best practices required to port existing UNIX applications to the Windows environment, which can potentially reduce the time, cost, and risk associated with a traditionally painful migration process. This guide covers planning and practical issues involved in migration or co-existence between UNIX and Windows and provides a review of the different ways in which such a migration can be done. Ideal for both UNIX programmers as well as Windows programmers, this is a valuable source of information for anyone looking to take advantage of Windows.
UNIX To Windows Code Migration Guide
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I installed windows services for unix (or is it unix services for windows) a couple days ago (the 120 day trial version).
It’s pretty neat, but has a slightly mish-mash feel to it. strings on the executables show OpenBSD libc was used, and most of the utilities are bsd (gcc is included, (cygnus 2.7.2), but I haven’t gotten it to work yet).
the install directory is mapped to /. (ie C:/SFU/ is /, C:/SFU/bin is /bin, C: is /dev/…/C)
It also includes a handful of XWindows apps, but they seem to be R5, not R6. I haven’t tested them with an XServer to see if they actualy work.
It’s funny to watch the “time-line graph” in chapter 2.
Do they want us to believe that Windows 3.11 in 1992 was the first release of Windows and that it evolved in only 10 years?
Weras they show the entire UNIX path from 1969.
Also they completetly denies any connection to OS/2 (in the graph NT 3.1 seems to be a derivative of Windows 3.11, which it obviously wasn’t, just shared the GUI).
Windows for Worksgroups 3.11 WAS the predessesor of Windows NT. At least as a product, pitched to servers.
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is not the same as Windows 3.1.
Have a good laugh:
“… Will I need to use features on Linux that will tie me in to a single vendor?” …
If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you may find that Linux provides a less than ideal solution.”
Why even Switch to Windows? Can you even configure a Windows machine without a Windows GUI? Seriously?
Soon, we shall see a MS fake CIO article about the reasons he switched his company’s UNIX machines to Windows… http://news.com.com/2100-1001-961994.html?tag=fd_ots
Someone mentioned previously on osnews that win.net server does, in fact, have full command line tools for every administrative task.
So, yes, you can use windows without a gui.
I think that is like a double catchup:
win-zombies trying to get people using their crap as server givin some CLI tools [people wont care since who use that wants plain text configuration files easly manageable) and GNU/* | *BSD |*n*x crew trying to appealing luser by giving a GUI that may suit their narrow mind (a losing battle? maybe or maybe not).
Still I think that Apple is doing the best on that a decent UI for not initiated with the same *BSD CLI programs for geeky ones.
PS:I like much the E17 DS+ the Gnome2 UI+CLI/text editor (vim) for configuration but that is another story…
>Windows for Worksgroups 3.11 WAS the predessesor of Windows
>NT. At least as a product, pitched to servers.
>Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is not the same as Windows 3.1.
Actually, the predessessor of Windows NT was Microsoft OS/2.
A very nice graph can be found at http://www.levenez.com/windows/
> Actually, the predessessor of Windows NT was Microsoft OS/2.
Actually, the predecessor of Windows NT was pretty much VMS from Digital. What a surprise, with 20 former Digital engineers working on it.
“Actually, the predecessor of Windows NT was pretty much VMS from Digital. What a surprise, with 20 former Digital engineers working on it.”
Actually, OS/2 did come before NT, but it (the first one anyway) was written entirely in assembly for some specific Intel proccessor (which one I forget, and I’m too lazy to look it up). Anyway, that one had to be scrapped when Intel introduced the new processor, and (they decided to be smart this time around) rewrote it entirely in C. Now, neither OS/2 nor NT are DIRECT decendents of VMS. They are only heavily INFLUENCED by the design of DEC VMS for the forementioned reason (DEC Engineers).
A small overview comparing VMS 5.0 (the last version Cutler worked on) and NT: http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=97&ArticleID=449…
Not too detailed, though.
Funny quote: “In fact, you can read sections of VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures (Digital Press) as an accurate description of NT internals simply by translating VMS terms to NT terms.”
Some other interesting articles covering the basics of the NT architecture:
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=2984
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=3025
Can’t say how objective or accurate they are, though. It’s “WinNetMag”, after all.
I just want to run Evolution on my Windows Box.
That’s it.
to move from a proprietary paltform that costs a ton of cash to buy to a proprietary system that costs a ton of cash to buy/administer…….
I think it would be wiser to migrate to Linux
Now we will have people run off, port their application from an openstandards based operating system to one of the most buggy, proprietary, embrace, extend and exterminate operating systems on the planet?
Lets see, one corner we have Motif/GTK/QT/TK + UNIX 95/98 specification, which all commercial UNIX’s support, in the other corner we have Win32 API supports by one operating system vendor known for screwing its customers. Gee, thats a REALLY hard decision.
Ah, come on. I’m all for free software, but you’re not stating all the facts. Fact is, more than 90% of all PCs run Microsoft Windows. “Gee, that’s a REALLY hard decision.”
So what? millions listen to Britney Spears, does that make her a good singer? hell no!
This is relating to HIGH END UNIX SYSTEMS USING DUMB TERMINALS, NOT DESKTOP SYSTEMS!
I guess you got the message? thats right. Not piddly little desktops, big friggin UNIX servers with dumb terminals running off them running millions of lines worth of legacy code.
That is what they are trying to convert. My reaction, if it ain’t broken, why fix it? if a big friggin s/390 does the job, why do some CIO’s feel the need to waste money and downgrade to a Windows NT cluster solution? hype? stupidity? the fact that they are NEVER held accountable for stupid decisions? the fact they could have been to one too many MSDN conferences with the flashy lights and the Madonna music?
I started with DOS->Win3.1->win95/NT->W2K (by this time I was trying Unixes) and settled on Linux Because Windows is Bloated, Buggy and Overpriced. Windows own VP states that Windows is not designed for secuirty (In an article about W2K hack) while Unixes and Linux strive for secuirty so why would anyone in their right mind switch Unix to Windows—>Oh silly me thats right to protect that stupid MCSE piece of paper and to ensure that they dont have to learn anything–>thats whos pushing for Windows systems switches is the MS departments who want to increase their pie. Fact is that any Unix (Including Linux) will outperform Windows any day of the week and do it with security and without crashing (my favorite is rebooting the SQL server twice a month jsut because its stops responding to all request and claims to be at 100% health)
Just skimmed through the introduction, and there is another gem hidden there, when MS begs you to reconsider moving to Linux based on “do I need to integrate with heterogenous environment.” Hah. Especially, if one is going to migrate away from UNIX, which would integrate better with the legacy UNIXen left around: Linux or Windows?
Also, while the Linux questions are just something one should consider, on the other hand they give the reader a comprehensive list of (apparently) undisputable benefits of selecting Windows. And — at least in the introduction — they give no basis for any of the claims about benefits of Windows. I would expect claims like “best price-to-performance ratio” or “lowest TCO” to be proved.
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the cygwin and interix environments? I have used both (Interix only briefly), and cygwin seems to be more stable, and supports many more Unix applications (not to mention it has XFree86 4.2 available in the install) with little modification, especially when compared to Interix. Anyone out there with more knowledge about the two Unix for Windows environments??
You’ve been able to automate the fuck out of windows with perl for years. Still, doesn’t mean the OS is worth the trouble to automate.
Why migrate when you can just recompile?
http://www.cygwin.com/
It’s even got all that hideous X11 crap that everyone thinks makes Linux usable. Whoops, did I say that out loud? 🙂
– chrish
Why not just migrate you UNIX apps to DOS, if your that interested in moldy, legacy OS’s?
You’d be doing yourself and everybody else a favor if you just convinced your clients to stop beating a dead horse and upgrade to UNIX– I don’t care whether its LINUX, BSD, or OS X– they are all a thousand times better (faster, more stable, better multitasking, more secure, more open, less expensive)than the crap that Redmond sells.
“Why even Switch to Windows? Can you even configure a Windows machine without a Windows GUI? Seriously?”
“Someone mentioned previously on osnews that win.net server does, in fact, have full command line tools for every administrative task.
So, yes, you can use windows without a gui.”
I simply can *not* believe I’m reading this conversation, on this web site. Can someone please explain to me *why* people who are supposed to be familiar with OS’s are having this argument? Or, maybe one of them doesn’t understand Linux, or the UNIX philosophy?
The Windows “Operating system” has an *integrated* GUI.
When I can boot from a floppy disk, to a command line, and perform a complete restore or *repair* of a Windows system *without* having to live with 8.3 filenames in the meantime, or load a GUI, come talk to me again.
…or maybe I have to give somebody a bunch of $$$ for that “feature?”
(example of where stock NT facilities fall short)
You can’t run through a group of users, using *stock* command-line tools, and make *all* the changes to their password policy that you can with User Manager (which is a GUI tool.)
For that matter, as a system admin why do I have to scratch like a chicken in order to build my own security tools under Perl, say? Why does Microsoft make it so hard for administrators to get (e.g.) enough info to handle ACL’s with scripts?
If I had to make an assessment, I’d say this: Microsoft *wants* people to get used to pointing and clicking, and they want developers to pay *them* to produce the items to be pointed and clicked at; in turn, any good tools for back-end workers on Windows (especially system support people) come from developers, for a price, and you can *not* make those tools do exactly what you want because you don’t get the source code.
One final point here: I’ve been all over the IT business (programming, systems, analysis, networking,) and have worked with computers since 1979. In Linux (and other OS/Free Unixes,) there are constantly orphaned programs that somebody picks up later on and continues to work on. OTOH, I have a whole diskload of programs for Windows/DOS which will *never* be improved again. And I *paid* for those. Not to mention some of the outright *hostility* you get when trying to “migrate” GNU applications over….
Install Outlook, get a good antivirus software, viola – Evolution. If it helps you, you can manually change the icons to be similar to that in GNOME.
The GUI isn’t integrated into the kernel. No it isn’t. GDI is integrated into Windows NT’s kernel just like the framebuffer is integrated into the Linux kernel (though, with the latter, you can manually remove it…).
Explorer, the *GUI* (GUI stands for graphical user interface, think, my friend), is in C:WinNTexplorer.exe or C:Windowsexplorer.exe. You can kill it using Ctrl+Alt+Del.
As for command line, you can infact install bash and use it perfectly fine. I never tried it myself (when I want to use bash, I would use Linux :-), but I remember reading a tutorial on how to install bash on Windows NT.
Windows 2000 claims to use a microkernel architecture. According to all the documentation I’ve seen, the window manager for W2k runs as a process in kernel mode (which actually contradicts the microkernel definition, since everything, including device drivers, is supposed to run in user mode except for the microkernel itself).
The linux framebuffer module is a graphics driver. There’s a Gigantic difference between a graphics driver running in kernel mode, and a window manager running in kernel mode.
The linux framebuffer module is a graphics driver. There’s a Gigantic difference between a graphics driver running in kernel mode, and a window manager running in kernel mode.
Who cares? That just means it runs faster, i’ll bet that in-kernel messaging is faster than ipc.
The point is that a window manager is a large, complex piece of software prone to failure. That is one of the reasons Windows is notorious for crashing.
People who develop operating systems care. That’s what this website is all about.