Unix to beef up Longhorn

[Zombie9920]

Last year rumors surfaced that Microsoft was considering including its Services for Unix (SFU) into Longhorn. Today vnunet is reporting that Microsoft is indeed going to include SFU into its next generation OS. Exactly how Microsoft will go about this remains to be seen. SFU cannot be shipped with Windows currently because it contains open-source software. This is probably why Microsoft bought licenses from SCO last year.

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 2008. 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. Systems running SFU provide an excellent environment for integrating applications - for example, to add Active Directory support to a Unix application.

Jason Zions, a solutions architect at Microsoft, said there are development versions of SFU that enable a single process to run code both from Windows and Unix libraries. Currently this feature, which would dramatically ease integration tasks, is not available in SFU. Zions said, "We've been working on research versions that would solve that particular problem. It wouldn't surprise me to see that capability appear in a future release of Windows."

Complete [email][email protected][/email]

[hm_murdock]

what stops them from shipping it?

why don't they just ship it and post the req'd source on their website?

[WMD]

Is it just me, or does MS SFU seem like it would work better for switching to *Unix* rather than the other way around?  Not to mention that it's called "Services for Unix" when really it's services *from* Unix.

[Aloone_Jonez]

It would be kule if their next version of Windows was Unix based, then hardware vendors would ship their equipment with Unix drivers.  This would make it much easier for people like me to switch to Linux, and it's also why it will never happen.

By the way what would happen if MS stole some Linux code and then used it in Longhorn which is closed source, so how could this be proven?

[ July 13, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]

[hm_murdock]

lol

Longhorn will not be UNIX based. MS only spent a decade developing the NT kernel and building their OS around it. it's not the flaky crapfest that it used to be, it's much improved, and there's no way they'd start over from scratch with UNIX.

Besides, if you thought Windows was complex now... wait until you put it on top of UNIX with its thousands of little layers.

[Aloone_Jonez]

It doesn't have to be that bad they could just stick a Windows emulator on top to run all the legacy code.

I agree though, NT is the only option for MS.

Anyway where did NT originate from?

Did they buy, or steel it from anyone, or is it the only ture MS operating system?

How can anyone be sure that it doesn't contain any stolen Linux code?

They wasted nearly a decade on dos before they dumped it for NT.

    NT. Doesn't that mean new technology, that's over ten years old?

[hm_murdock]

NT is their own thing, built by Dave Cutler who worked on VMS. the idea originally was to port Windows to VMS I believe, and add the capabilities that they contributed to OS/2. it evoloved into a full OS of its own.

NT did mean New Technology, yes. The NT kernel is now called the Windows Engine

[WMD]

If Windows was Unix based, it wouldn't mean there'd be Linux drivers out of nowhere.  Drivers are per kernel - Linux drivers are different from FreeBSD drivers, even though they're both Unix.

And NT is like, part VMS, part DOS (for compatibility), and part-some unknown stuff.

To correct a small error by Jimmy - they weren't going to port NT to VMS, that's an OS.  You meant port it to VAX or Alpha.  Which kinda-sorta happened with NT 3.1, but not much after.

[hm_murdock]

I was under the impression that they were going to put Windows atop VMS

[anphanax]

quote:
Microsoft wanted to further develop Windows, while IBM desired for future work to be based on OS/2. In an attempt to resolve this tension, IBM and Microsoft agreed that IBM would develop OS/2 2.0, to replace OS/2 1.3 and Windows 3.0, while Microsoft would develop a new operating system, OS/2 3.0, to later succeed OS/2 2.0.

This agreement soon however fell apart, and the Microsoft/IBM relationship was terminated. IBM continued to develop OS/2, while Microsoft changed the name of its (as yet unreleased) OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT. Both retained the rights to use OS/2 and Windows technology developed up to the termination of the agreement; Windows NT, however, was to be written anew, mostly independently (see below)...

... one of the chief architects of VMS at Digital Equipment Corporation (later purchased by Compaq, now part of Hewlett-Packard) to develop NT into a more capable operating system. Cutler had been developing a follow-on to VMS at DEC called Mica, and when DEC dropped the project he brought the expertise and some engineers with him to Microsoft. DEC also believed he brought Mica's code to Microsoft and sued. Microsoft eventually paid $150 million US and agreed to support DEC's Alpha CPU chip in NT.

Source:
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/h/hi/history_of_microsoft_windows.html

[Redders]

If Microsoft did steal source from Linux and released it they would be forced to prove they didn't steal it, and then would have to give anyone they sold this Linux source code to the full source code of Windows, which would kind of be bad for them.