|
|
| MS Would Like You to Consider an Alternative to Linux for Your Server Needs |
 |
|
Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
|
Remember when Microsoft bought a license from SCO back in May and you asked why they would bother? While the question is probably still valid, here is one likely answer. Yahoo News says Microsoft is preparing to launch its Windows Services For Unix 3.5: As LinuxWorld Expo approaches, Microsoft will try to upstage gains made by its open source nemeses next week by launching Windows Services For Unix 3.5. Windows Services for Unix 3.5, which is currently in beta testing and will be officially launched next week, is updated for the latest round of Windows offerings, Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP. . . . SFU is viewed as a key tool in Microsoft's arsenal for gaining Unix converts and preventing more Linux server wins. Did we have to go through the SCO soap opera just for this? Is the strategy to make both Unix and Linux unpalatable, so everyone flocks to Microsoft? I can't help but note the timing, right after SCO sends Unix licensees a threatening letter. Up pops a Microsoft solution. Notice what the new product is for: The upgrade also significantly improves the ability to recompile Unix and Linux applications to run on Windows, said one key Microsoft executive in charge of battling the Linux threat.
"It goes up into the 90 percent range," said Martin Taylor, general manager for Platform Strategies at Microsoft, about the recompiling improvements.
Taylor also noted the 3.5 edition adds a number of libraries and ASP.NET and CE.NET improvements that will enable easier corporation migrations from Unix to Windows, as well as interoperability of Windows in mixed environments. Microsoft will have a booth at LinuxWorld to recruit you Linux crunchies to go work for them, which I know you are simply wild to do, especially if Microsoft ends up proving to be behind this sad fiaSCO. If you are interested in reading about Microsoft's chief of beating Linux back,
Martin Taylor, here is an interview with him. It's puff piece from last August, but he does indicate what their strategy is.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
Well, on the face of it at least its a legit business activity. Can't beat em,
join em I guess. Making YOUR product, more compatible with ANOTHER product, how
refreshing.
Whats the point of running *nix apps in windows if the OS crashes before the
apps ever will?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rc on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST |
| Nope, I'm afraid its too little, too late. The micro$oft implosion is
coming, and there's little or nothing that they can do to stop it. They may get
some foolish people who are willing to sell their souls... er, I mean follow the
pied... er, I mean... Oh, never mind! It won't save them.
I'm planning on
doing all I can to help accelerate the implosion, but its coming with or without
my help....
rc
---
IANAL - surprise ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST |
If Microsoft is behind this fiaSCO, is it illegal? Would there be any way to
even prove it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST |
So, the product allows you to run Unix applications under Windows.. as in
Windows security??
Next time the bank is loading up the Armored car with money, I'll ask them if
they want me to transport it instead.. in my Yugo..
oy!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST |
The nice thing about this is that the software is a handy tool for assisting the
migration from Windows to UNIX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:16 PM EST |
This is amusing. While I can see M$ attempting this, it is truly an
intelligence-challenged move. The issue is this: Once we have walked away from
M$ for our servers, why should we pay them for their efforts to recapture us?
It makes no sense.
I run numerous web sites on local servers, over our business internet
connection. All of the web servers run apache on linux. They give absolutely
no trouble whatsoever, and they cost nothing in license fees. If I needed more
features I would add mysql and php, which are also free software, and are very
much up to the task.
Furthermore, my "new" servers are not running Intel-based hardware.
Used industrial-strength Sun Ultra-5 workstations have come down in price on
ebay to the point where I can use them as web servers very reasonably, and they
are already meant to be rack mounted and run headless... Not only no gui, but
no monitor or keyboard. It all runs command line over the serial port. And it
all runs linux. (Funny note: it also does not run Sun Solaris, since Sun only
licenses the software to the original purchaser of the hardware. Bad move!)
Now tell me again just how M$ is going to sell me their solution, at the kind of
price they charge, and with the mediocre service they have supplied in the past?
I don't think so.
---
QRL? DE W4TI[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:16 PM EST |
Y'know, I recall the first two instantiations of this.
The first was
the "POSIX environment" from Microsoft, for Windows
NT, which was required for
some federal procurement requirements.
Microsoft had such a high
opinion of how much people wanted
POSIX-conformance that it was completely
seperated from the main
environment -- in other words, you could not write a
POSIX program that
made any Windows calls. I think it also had problems using
the default
file system.
This was so popular that another company
(whose name I
am blanking on) wrote a set of libraries that ran in the normal
NT
environment, but provided POSIX libraries, commands, etc. It did pretty
darned well; I think it was based on the BSD free code.
I am
distraught that I can't remember this better; I had a lot of
dealings with
these people -- including while I was at SCO -- because of
my involvement with
the POSIX committees (I moderate the UseNET
newsgroups comp.std.unix),
and I had periodic exchanges
with them for a few years after.
I'm not
sure about this, but I also seem to recall uSoft acquiring this
company, or
perhaps one that did something similar, a few years ago...
am I
misremembering?
Sorry, this was just some ramblings related to all of
this that I hoped
might be of interest to people. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:17 PM EST |
I agree with the previous commenter that this could well backfire. It will
enable large organisations to keep Windows desktops around (notably
because of MS Office in my eyes) while migrating their servers over to
Linux easily, and performing critical tasks there. It would certainly help
to get certain OSS apps to a wider audience :-)
One more comment: As much as Microsoft's marketing and strategies
are pretty evil, I believe their corporate culture is not. They certainly
have good people, and they seem to enjoy some freedom and creativity
in what they do. For all their FUD and monopoly games, they would not
be where they are now if they hadn't managed to attract an excellent
workforce. So, as for the recruiting comment above - do not write such
efforts off as laughable, if only to not underestimate the player on the
other side of the table.
Finally, having M$ around as competition is not a bad thing - I would
not nearly appreciate the power of OSS as much as I do if it weren't for
the existence of the proprietary side :-) seriously, the true power of OSS
is not that it doesn't cost money, and for me not even the recompile - it
simply has the greates service around in that you have the developers to
turn to for service - mostly people who actually care about making their
program better, rather than their next paycheck. If you file a bugreport,
the answer is "how can we reproduce it" - rather than silence + the
opportunity to pay for the next version ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevenzenith on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST |
So let me get this straight. If I develop my applications on Linux, MS will
mitigate my risk by ensuring that I will be able to recompile my applications
for Windows and move from Unix should there be a future requirement to do so at
a later date.
If I am an enterprise developer this is great news. If my management was
hestitant before this will really relieve their concerns and ensure that I can
proceed as planned.
This is a safety net - more reason to use Linux, not less.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:31 PM EST |
If you need a Unix environment in Windows, would Cygwin be an adequate
alternative?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:39 PM EST |
"The upgrade also significantly improves the ability to recompile Unix and
Linux applications to run on Windows."
Hmmm. Ok... I'm struggling here with tears just rolling out of my eyes. I
cannot remember the last time I laughed this hard. I have my main workstation
setup ... sorry it's hard to type with all these tears.. just a sec...
Ok.. I have my main workstation running a slackware linux desktop. I love it.
But I do need an occassional win program to run so I use win4lin as a temporary
fix until 2 more needed software packages arrive in the open source field.
I've worked hard to not even use windows on linux unless absolutely needed. So
let me get this right, I am going to now replace my perfectly stable and secured
operating system running win4lin with 98, to a windows operating system running
Unix and Linux apps.. I'm going to trade my great open source software to
something I can compile linux apps on and then pay for it?
BaWaHaaaaHwa.. . Oh the tears...Oh my gosh..... Excuse me while I recover. I
just have to be misunderstanding this... Please tell me I am before I absolutely
die with laughter...
Server needs?.... A Microsoft server?.... That is even funnier... BawAhaaWaBa
waaaaa....
This is funnier than SCO.... I can't take any more.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsw on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:46 PM EST |
SFU is a set of Unix functions, libraries and apps ported to the Windows
environment. It is similar to the Cygwin set available from Redhat. Both give
you things like bash, sed, awk etc.
The difference between SFU and
Cygwin is that SFU has additional daemons to let the Windows side provide things
like authentication, disk and print services to Unix, sort of like a reverse
Samba.
In fact, parts of SFU are GPLed from a product/company called
Interix that Microsoft bought out, have a look at the sidebar
here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:53 PM EST |
These are examples of underdogs supporting, and touting, compatibility and
interoperability for their marginal products against an overwhelming
market-share-dominating competitor. So, just WHY is Microsoft so excited that
now you can run Linux applications on Windows? Or, further, why is Microsoft
targeting customer who are excited about porting Linux applications to Windows?
Could it be that the current trend among the young-buck/-doe programmers is
Linux applications? Could it be that Microsoft has successfully devoured
competition on its own platform and the stagnation that comes without
competition is beginning to set in?
When OS/2 promoted its Windows Compatibility mode it signaled that Windows was
the gold standard. When Woz created the SuperDrive that could read ProDOS, Mac
and PC discs, he not only saved Apple from Amiga-hood; he signaled unambigously
that the PC was the market leader. So, is Microsoft tipping its hand that Linux
is where it's at today?
I wonder if we can port samba, WineX, bochs, Evolution, etc. to Windows? Funny
thing is, one commercial project to run Windows binaries on Linux is Winex. So,
to run Linux binaries on Windows needs a project called....Linux. Yep, just put
in your LiveCD, boot and use your computer to its fullest. Remove the threat of
dangerous Windows code from becoming infected by the legion of Windows exploits
(just don't run as root, please!). Make your computer Personal again with
GNU/Linux.
I'm glad PJ wrote about this announcement in context of scummy SCO. And it sure
makes sense that McBride's "job" is to make UNIX and Linux a
complete morass of confusion, rancor and stench that Microsoft looks pristine in
comparision. Actually, the only other interpretation that is even somewhat
logical is a simple pump-and-dump by SCO insiders. Perhaps Boies' involvement
is the legal way to funnel payment from MS to him for botching the slam-dunk
case the gov't had against MS. He sure doesn't seem to be working on this case
-- not enough to explain the hefty spoils he gets, regardless.
(BTW, I don't doubt samba would boost Windows file serving performance...)
---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:18 AM EST |
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this product contain SCO copyrighted ABI
just like linux?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:56 AM EST |
| Microsoft
slams HP's iTunes move [macworld.co.uk] [bold tags added by
me]
General manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division David
Fester has suggested that iTunes' emerging dominance would be bad for consumers,
because it would limit them to the iPod.
He told journalists at the
Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas: "Windows is about choice - you
can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have
the same choice when it comes to music services."
What a dolt.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST |
Proprietary Unix(C) vendors are losing market share to GNU/Linux, because of its
(a) superb quality, (b) rapid adoption of cutting edge technology, (c) superb
support, at (d) very low cost, (e) &etc.
Proprietary Unix(C) vendors who are primarily box manufacturers are spending
enormous amounts of money maintaining their unique verions of unix for their
hardware. Adopting GNU/Linux frees up a very considerable percentage of those
software development budgets to go to the bottom line.
These Proprietary Unix(C) vendors are smart companies, they see the move to
GNU/Linux is both inevitable and, for box vendors like IBM and HP, profitable
(by reducing mega-million dollar R&D development budgets if nothing else).
Now suppose Microsoft also comes to believe that their future is in jeopardy
from GNU/Linux. How could they first embrace GNU/Linux and then extenguish it?
(Sigghhhh, old habits die hard.)
Is it possible that Microsoft is funding SCO's bizarre attacks on GNU/Linux to
test the potential legal defenses in anticipation of their asserting their
patent portfolio against GNU/Linux?
Could they arrange to extract *patent* license fees from GNU/Linux *users* ?
What would be the reaction in the business community? In the OSS development
community? From the Feds?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:56 AM EST |
I think their missing the point........
Poeple are going to linux because it is cheaper, more flexible, has none of the
"tie your hands behind your back" licensing issues, is more stable
and more secure. In general, just better.
The majority of people are not moving to linux because they want to
"migrate from Unix". They want freedom that MS is unlikely to ever
give them.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:11 AM EST |
Maybe they are trying to con the grand public as they did with windows. They
were last to enter the GUI market, but ask anyone in the street and 95% of the
time the answer will be MS invented the "point and click gizmo!".
So now, before the grand public realises it, they want to turn Windows into a
Unix look alike platform (enough anyway to join the bandwagon) just so that in 5
years' time, when asked, John Doe will answer "MS invented Linux!"
---
JJJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:34 AM EST |
I'm so excited, I mean before all I could have was a fast, secure
and reliable server using a boxed Linux set that cost £50 and
gave gave me 4000 applications to deploy across as many
desktops as I like but wow, now I can emulate that by spending
4 figure sums on a Unix clone built on top of Windows.
Dear Mr Gates, rearrange these words into a well known phrase
or saying:
off piss [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 06:06 AM EST |
Is MS allowing users to configure the OS to include only the features needed to
support the application(s)? If I want to set up a database server, can I leave
out Media Player, Innernut Exploder, and even the entire GUI? Can I *fully*
configure and control the system using only a command-line interface on a telnet
connection?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST |
Maybe this just illustrates the frustration MS is feeling. Every underhanded
trick they've used with success against past threats has failed against Linux.
So, they're now borrowing from usenet acronymns: SFU, aka Shut the F*** Up.
Their puppets, anti-American comments before the U.S. Congress, FUD and
trumped-up lawsuits have not stopped the breakout of users and companies from
the MS EULA cage. Since governments the world over have discovered FOSS can help
cover their butts from embarassment in the public view, MS doesn't have much
chance of getting FOSS outlawed. It looks like MS just wants everyone to SFU
about this thing they can't beat.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST |
Is Microsoft going to indemnify users of this software?
After all, the people who use this could find themselves using the ABI's that
SCO have harped on about as infringing on their rights, so surely it's right
that MS offers to indemnify their users against possible legal action from
anyone who's dreamt up a business plan that's based on sueing everyone
possible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
I don't believe for one cotton-pickin minute that Microsoft has any real
interest in Unix products. Why would Micorsoft launch a product to support a
dying competitor(SCO) with a dying product (UNIX). Microsoft's license is a
backdoor way of helping to finance SCO's legal attack aginst Linux. Look at
SCO's last financial statements other than Microsoft and Sun the company has no
real income.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST |
| Interix (Now WSF 3.5) bootstrapped off Cygwin, Grepping the binaries turns up
OpenBSD, and even a fun comment in the SDK/usr/include/signal.h
file:
"Historic signals, from V7 Unix.
Names and numbers conform to V7,
SysV, BSD, Posix, SUS.
(Posix and SUS do not require SIGEMT.) ...
"Modern
signals--all are required by POSIX and SUS,
except SIGWINCH, which conforms to
SysV and BSD.
Names and numbers conform to SysV (except SIGIO--SysV
has SIGPWR
instead). BSD has different numbering
lacks SIGPOLL, has SIGINFO."
Call
it a remix.
DJ Delorie
explains even MS gets half of what sharing's about.
So what's new? It's
a mix of Free/Open Source for some utilities and compilers, and the rest is
closed. Cygwin works fine and runs in userspace. On Windows, this is good. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
Every indication from Novell is that they believe SCO skipped a few steps in
their recent licensing arrangement with MS. The UNIX Services for Windows
venture could turn into a major embarrassment for MS if said services are
depending in any major way on IP "licensed" from SCO.
Here's hoping.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:15 AM EST |
So let's get this straight.
1. Plunk down several million dollars to license Unix
2. Distribute it as a Cygwin clone
3. Profit!!!
Only isn't it illegal for a monopoly to use its market power to distribute at
less than cost to drive out competitors.
Oh, wait. Cygwin and Linux are free. I guess it's only illegal if they *pay*
us to use it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:49 AM EST |
| In case you are too young to remember the discussions from 1997-2000 on this
topic, MS hides the source code at a non-MS site, called
interopsystems.com
at least the parts
they are willing to share back.
Allegedly, you can use the WWW to find the
FTP server, or just guess, it's faster, since the "site map" and "search"
facilities are "under construction":
ftp.interopsystems.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fixed Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
- Fixed Link - Authored by: tyche on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST |
``New files in /etc:
You're all familiar with the file
/etc/motd which presents notices to users when they log into a UNIX or
Linux system. Well, Microsoft is pleased to announce a new file:
/etc/votd. This file is used by Windows Services for UNIX(tm) (WSU) to
alert users of the vulnerability of
the day. Users of WSU should use this file as a
means of determining that it is time to update their virus preotection
software's signature files and, possiblty, to reinstall their operating
system.'' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pyrite on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 11:50 AM EST |
It's easy to go into a clothing store and pick a suit or some other clothing
off the shelf that is very close to your size and then have it altered here and
there to fit you properly.
However, having clothes tailored for you specifically is just much better. It
might cost more, then again, it might not cost that much more.
I think that anytime you take an OS, whether it's Microsoft, Apple, Linux,
Unix, whatever... and apply a somewhat impersonal assembly line method to it, it
suffers.
It's all in your mind. If you feel good about using Microsoft products, then
that's wonderful. Microsoft, along with many other OS's, uses what could be
called an "impersonal assembly line method" route, which is, to some
extent, a direction that many Linux distributions are heading; many Unix flavors
as well, each to a greater or lesser extent. If that doesn't bother you, and
you are happy with what you have got, then that's wonderful.
It's sort of like the situation where the best wines in the world never make it
to the wine store shelves - you are not doing anyone a favor by running around,
beating your chest, trying to get as many people to buy the wine as you possibly
can. It's unnecessary; the wine is sold before the grapes are picked. It seems
counterintuitive, for many people, to not advertise. The drive to make more,
increase sales, increase revenue, expand, go public, get famous, etc... versus
focusing on making the absolute best quality product you can. The best things
in life, there are not enough of. No one really wants to spend the rest of their
life screaming at the top of their lungs about how much better their quality of
life is since they started using this wonderful product that they are screaming
at the top of their lungs about. Shhhhh... be very, very quiet....
Nothing beats having the source code to a fully functional program that you, or
someone who works for you, can change at their leisure. The proprietary
"stack" is like buying clothing off the rack, or making wine buying
decisions from the little advertisements and gold medal blurbs they have sitting
there taped on the shelf. Each situation is unique, and each situation needs to
be addressed in a calm, balanced, level-headed manner, with reasonable
expectations.
The whole idea of trying to reach huge number of people with your product needs
to be questioned. Not that it's necessarily wrong, I just think it's something
we need to think about sometimes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:19 PM EST |
I can see this being a liability for MS in two scenarios:
1) If there really is Linux code in SCO's Linux API/ABI which is now being used
by Microsoft. Can we say copyright infringement?
2) If Novell is correct in interpreting the APA, SCO is only given rights to
sell UnixWare and OpenServer licenses. All other license sales are subject to
Novell's aproval and require 95% of royalties to be paid to Novell.
Looks like a bad move for MS. It's almost like Novell planned it all along.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST |
To be fair MS is probably just covering their a**. MS benefits from the FUD
SCO is creating, but I don't think they are neccessairly behind it, or at least
they have plausable deniabilty. It would serve MSs goals to purchase a licence
from SCO which permits them to incorporate UNIX and Linux compatibility in
Windows. SCO's UNIX has Linux services in it, and the purchased licence
provides MS with a way to circumvent the GPL and build Linux compatibility into
Windows with a veneer of legitimacy.
This strategy has more upsides for MS than downsides;
1. If SCO wins, MS is covered by the licence (upside)
2. If SCO looses MS has a product ready to launch and
will not be hit with licence renewal fees. (upside)
3. MS has legitimate access to SCO's UNIX internals to
develop their product. (upside)
4. Possibility of future legal battles if SCO has used
GPLd code in their UNIX O/S to provide Linux
compatibility. MS can cry foul as they purchased the
license in good faith from SCO, who will take all of the
heat. (remote downside)
From MS's standpoint they can't loose. If SCO wins they have a licence, and if
SCO looses they have the product developed and on the market. If there are legal
challenges because of GPLd code in the SCO software, it will take time to
straighten that mess out. While this is not really a plus for MS it is also not
a plus for Linux either.
Meanwhile Darl and company are so blinded by their greed that they continue to
drill holes in the bottom of their boat, aparently oblivious of the rising
waters around them. Perhaps they have a really big pump that will save them, but
I have yet to see any evidence of it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:42 PM EST |
Is it just me, or has Microsoft named this totally bass ackwards? It isn't
Windows Services for Unix, it's Unix Services for Windows.
But then, Microsoft has never been very good at names ("Word",
"Money", "Project", "SQL Server", and even
"Micro Soft" ;-)
-- AJWM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: aug24 on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST |
Here's a guess: SCO is going to go 'bang' as a company by the end of this.
MS is trying to get all SCO's products working on (a) Windows by then. Hence
the licences of SVR5 etc. They get both a FUD machine and a client base in one
package.
Justin.
---
--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 02:42 PM EST |
Two days later: Linux and SCO and Microsoft all over the epress, Microsoft
lowers price from $99 to $0 for its Kit (about its fair market value, and it
offers real Open Source utilities under MS-DOS for those of us unfortunate
enough to be engaged with trying to keep customer's Windows clean) and (the
most fatal-for-SCO move) SCO goes world wide in its Linux IP licensing scam.
Has it really become The World vs. SCO and Microsoft? Gee. How is Sun staying on
the fence?
http://www.forbes.com/2004/01/13/cx_da_1013topnews.html?partner=yahoo&referr
er=
Novell Joins Forces With Linux Brothers
Dan Ackman, 01.13.04, 9:51 AM ET
" ... But independent software developers, many of whom portray a
passionate, teeth-gnashing hatred for Microsoft, are likely Linux's strongest
backers. Lately their wrath has been visited on SCO as well, as they see the
Utah company claiming to own what no one owns. Linux forces great and small seem
to be joining as one."
---
Ben B
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
Look at the positive side. This might give Windows administrators a chance to
experiment with open source software. This gives them a security blanket until
they are comfortable with a Unix environment. Then they can go the full way with
a copy of Linux or BSD.
I work in a Windows shop where introducing anything not Microsoft is like
pulling teeth. However, I keep squeezing it in, first Apache, and a few
utilities running on top of Windows, then one or two small BSD servers. I even
get a call from an occasional user who needs Linux for some special project.
Recently a Linux based intrusion detection system was implemented. Progress is
still slow but Open Source is gaining. Even though the diehards would like to
ignore it.
Personally, I think this could open the floodgates to those who just need that
security blanket to get them started towards Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST |
From an InfoWorld
article by Tom Yager, talking about Virtual PC 2004 and the
SFU
customers will use the product for its designed purpose:
Running one or more independent Unix sessions as hosted operating systems under
Windows. You don’t have to reboot, Unix can crash without taking Windows down,
and each session runs real Unix (or Windows, if you choose).
Maybe under MSs implementation it will be prone to crashing, but
on a server to server comparison I find that the MS O/S is more prone to
sporadic death.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
