Microsoft is set to include its Services for Unix (SFU) add-on for Windows as an integral part of the next major release of the Windows server operating system, codenamed Longhorn and expected in 2007. Some analysts said the move could eventually sideline conventional Linux and Unix operating systems. A growing number of firms are using SFU, currently a free add-on for Windows 2000, 2003 and XP Professional, because it enables a single system to run Windows, Linux and Unix software.
Unix to beef up Longhorn
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Good grief. First it was 2006… Then 2007… Now 2008? Geesh! That’s crazy. Six years between major releases is just plain crazy. If this is true, Microsoft is going to get lapped in functionality.
That’s probably a typo. It is between 2006 and 2007.
I’m curious; will the fat filesystem still be supported by Windows? Sure hope so.
After their copy of Tiger, MS went back to the drawing board….
LongHorn Windows Server version is expected/planned for 2008..
LongHorn Client Pro version is expected for 2006/2007 (Originally planned for 2005)
Why is that crazy? I think it’s good actually, as long as they release bugfixes.
> SFU is not shipped with Windows because
> SFU currently contains open-source software,
> such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be
> distributed with commercial software.
Of course it can.
quote: SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
No wonder it’s taking them till 2008 to get this out, if they are going to completely rewrite SFU because they can’t admit to using evil GNU opensource. They won’t win much respect from Unix shops if they continue to take people for fools with their “cannot be distributed with commercial software” nonsense.
But then again, destributing the worlds most popular Unix company’s ancient software makes up for allot. I wonder how wel CFront will compete against the GCC suite 😡
> SFU currently contains open-source software,
> such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be
> distributed with commercial software.
What FUD.
SFU is heavily based on OpenBSD. From what I’ve seen on the mailing lists and at (un)deadly.org, OpenBSD developers oppose the GPL almost as much as Microsoft. MS is going to use open-source for sure, but it’ll be “commercial” because they can mostly hide OpenBSD behind the name “Interop Systems”, making the solution seem proprietary.
If they want a non-GNU C compiler, couldn’t they use Intel’s ICC? As ICC works to support GNU-isms, GCC works to eliminate them. By the time Longhorn is released, the two should be mostly interchangeable.
“As for microsoft falling behind, sure they may fall abit behind (although sp2 for XP adds some significant new features)”
No. It doesnt. You just have fallen for PR stuff. saying that open source will destroy intellectual property and make you lose jobs while using open source stuff to enhance their own product is ironical at best
“OpenBSD developers oppose the GPL almost as much as Microsoft.”
yes they do but they churn out stupid stuff like MS does. big difference there. they have no problem with using gcc and stuff where applicable.even RMS agrees that for ogg vorbis bsd is better than gpl. they share code and ideas. no problem there. its only people like MS creating all kind of garbage
I know you are all saying of course it can and you are correct. But if MS is up to it’s old tricks, then they are right, they cannot “Embrace and Extend” it because it is open source and they would have to release their changes. If they write a compatable but different version, then they can do what MS does best.
Longhorn is going to be powered by OpenBSD. FYI: SFU is made by internix and their platform for SFU is OpenBSD. Darn OpenSource Software, their everywhere.
But if MS is up to it’s old tricks, then they are right, they cannot “Embrace and Extend” it because it is open source and they would have to release their changes.
They can if they use BSD code. In fact, they already use some BSD code in Windows, http://ftp.exe being an example. And yes, they kept the copyright notice so everything is perfectly legal.
6 months ago I was criticised for suggesting that Longhorn would be released in 2006, instead of 2005 as proclamed by Microsoft back then. Now they say 2007. I don’t believe that.
And now we hear that the client will be ready (in 2007) before the server (2008). Developing a client without a server ready is like trying to drive a car without engine. The 2007 client will be useless, and just to save face. The server will be late, and will probbaly appear in 2009 at the earliest, WITHOUT all the fancy features announced by Microsoft. In 2010-2011, they will release a patched Lonhorn that businesses will be able to rely on (just as they did when introducing Windows 3.1 or 95SE).
In 2015 they will announce that project Cairo is back on track, that it will include all the fancy features promised for Longhorn, and that this new Cairo will be released 2 years later….
That makes more sense and is not PR stuff. Just reality. Longhorn does not exist except on a drawing board and at night when Microsoft has dreams.
Laffs
but i guess msft needs to address pricing and security first before it can sideline unix and especially linux.
because of those and other issues, there’s currently a strong interest to get away from windows instead of the opposite. also because customers don’t want to get locked-in, especially not by mfst.
linux, however, needs to get more easy to set up, more out-of-the-box accessibility and more integrated (that’s where windows still excels).
“Good grief. First it was 2006… Then 2007… Now 2008? Geesh! That’s crazy. Six years between major releases is just plain crazy. If this is true, Microsoft is going to get lapped in functionality.”
Don’t let me get in the way of a good MS bashing:
There is very little hurry to release a new version; when you are largely in competition with only yourself. Contrary to the hype created by /., OSNews, and many others. MS is far from on the ropes.
if they can write .NET why not an ftp client. they could hire a 16 year-old whizz-kid to do that.
but this shows that they are not technically led – but led purely on convenienrt business strategies… and that shows in te quality of their products. need IE faster? sure, bring it into the kernel.
First they spread that open-source is like cancer and bad for the ecomomy..bla bla
Which the still hold to, so nothing changed here.
Then they rewrite their Windows shit, the old windows is full of stolen open-source stuff,
Wrong. Can you point to some “stolen open-source stuff”? The network stack once was based on BSD (like almost all of them) but that was a LONG time ago.
and now they are going to use open-source software to base their next flagship on. Err..?!??
Exactly, you “err”! They are just adding a Unix compatibility layer using open source software, nothing much different than Cygwin, albeit better integrated.
There are in NO WAY using open-source to “base” their next flagship on. You must have mistaken then for Apple.
Does anyboy care anymore?
To get their facts straight? I thing you proved that noone does.
[quote]Good grief. First it was 2006… Then 2007… Now 2008? Geesh! That’s crazy. Six years between major releases is just plain crazy. If this is true, Microsoft is going to get lapped in functionality.[/quote]
Personally, I’d prefer it if *more* OS developers took 3+ years between major releases. Even better would be if hardware developers took more than 3 months between architecture generations.
Progress is good. Product stability is better. Release early, release often has got to be the most insane development mantra I have ever heard. It should be “Release betas early, release betas often, release final when ready.” I am seriously getting sick of installing beta-quality software and upgrading it every 6 weeks because of everyone is following this damn “release early, release often” mantra.
Progress is good. Product stability is better. Release early, release often has got to be the most insane development mantra I have ever heard.
“Release early, release often” makes sense when you’ve got an immature product that needs rapid improvement. OS X falls into this category. Linux has only just fallen out of it in the last couple of years. Windows is well and truly past it.