Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Microsoft Services for Unix and OpenBSD 150

Posted by Hemos from the reduce-reuse-recycle dept.
ubiquitin writes "If you use strings on Microsoft's Services for Unix (SFU) interoperability suite which was developed by Interex you find that it is largely composed of source from the OpenBSD 3.0 source tree according to a recent deadly.org article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Services for Unix and OpenBSD More

Microsoft Services for Unix and OpenBSD

Comments Filter:

  • What's your point? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Blackknight ( 25168 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:32AM (#7084513) Homepage
    The BSD license allows anybody to do this.
    • I dunno... maybe the whole "innovation" campaign spouted during the trial? Yeah -- swiping code (legality be damned) sure is innovative.

      Or maybe this is a setup to bash the BSD license. The GPL wouldn't allow such horrible things to happen. :)

      • GPL, BSD, it doesn't matter. Services For Unix includes the gcc compiler (and source code!). MS isn't selling the command-line tools. The source code is out there, and anyone that interesetd in Unix knows where to find it and how to compile it.


        They're selling a posix-compatability layer, they're own (well, interix) code that provides full posix compatability in NT/2k/xp. The command-line tools is just icing on the cake.

      • "swiping code (legality be damned) sure is innovative"

        Probably more innovative than writing it all again, and again, and again, and again....

    • Re:What's your point? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DjReagan ( 143826 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:38AM (#7084578)
      The point is that Microsoft claimed they were buying a SCO license so they could use it for their "Services for Unix", not as a way of bankrolling SCO's efforts to FUD linux.

      This shows that the Services for Unix aren't derived from SCO sources, and therefore MS lied.

      Or something.
      • Or maybe SCO used the OpenBSD code which was then licensed to MS.
      • This shows that the Services for Unix aren't derived from SCO sources, and therefore MS lied.
        I expect that before long we'll learn that much of the *BSD code is actually owned by SCO.

        • Any claim SCO had over BSD was explicitly given up when Novell settled the lawsuit with Berkley. If SCO did go after BSD, the BSD code that was incorporated into SysV without a copyright notice would make SCO vulnerable to a countersuit, just like it did in the early 90's.

      • Re:What's your point? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This shows that the Services for Unix aren't derived from SCO sources, and therefore MS lied.

        No it doesn't. It's shows that the userland utilities are "largely composed" of BSD source code. Services For Unix isn't just a collection of *BSD binaries ported and recompiled for windows, it includes a kernel-level posix compatability layer. We have no idea where they/interix got that code from. Better put on your tinfoi hat. They probably stole the code from linux.

        • Re:What's your point? (Score:3, Informative)

          by gomerbud ( 117904 )
          There is some code in there that is licensed from SCO. For example, the Services for Unix includes David Korn's shell, not the public domain version. However, if you use 'ident' on the C library to print out the CVS tags, you'll see mostly OpenBSD code.
      • Yeah, because Services for Unix is composed entirely of 'strings'.

        umm right.

        All of the GPL'd software that's in SFU has source available for download as well, but I suppose that since most of that source (if not all of it) can be shown not to be derived from SCO, then MS doesn't need the license, right? Then again, there's always the closed-source portion of SFU, some portion of which is original code...
      • Maybe, maybe not. maybe there is some sco code in there also.
      • Since when has a company never covered its ass if it could? Do you really think MS had a plan in mind when it purchased the license? Hell no, for all it knew SCO could have gone on to claim the BSD code as well, so they covered their backs by buying a license.

    • Re:What's your point? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @11:02AM (#7084842) Homepage Journal
      Of course it's not illegal.

      It's just another example of how MS's PR is hypocritical. Open source is supposed to be the end of freedom, democracy and capitalism. But we knew that MS PR was hypocritical; it's hardly unique in that regard.

      I guess from a PR perspective it's newsorthy as a counter to MS claims. From a technical perspective, of course they used BSD'd code to create Unix services. That's how anybody with any common sense would do it, both from the point of view of effort and from the point of view of compatibility.

    • Re:What's your point? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      err, what's YOUR point? We know that the BSD license allows this.

      I think the more interesting thing is, Microsoft used a free software product to create one if its products. and that's not even all that interesting since they've been doing it for a long time (along with lots of other companies).

      A question though, is Microsoft compliant with the license? do they include the copyright notice in source and binary forms of the program:

      Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright

      * not

  • Finally, a secure Microsoft product! (Score:5, Funny)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:52AM (#7084726)
    Ra!

    Thanks, Theo!

  • The difference between BSD and GPL licensing (Score:5, Informative)

    by martinde ( 137088 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:58AM (#7084789) Homepage
    MS has every right to do this with BSD licensed code. And they do with GPLed code to, but if it was GPLed code then they would have to release the source to the derivative product under the GPL.

    Note that I'm not making any statements for or against either license, or for or against MS. I'm just pointing the key the difference in these popular licenses.
  • This proves that BSD is dying, right? ;)

    • Re:This proves it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:38PM (#7085770) Journal
      If MS owns 90% of the desktop market share or roughly there abouts, and they include BSD code in their OS, then how can BSD be dying??? Its not dying its being integrated into Microsoft code. It will never die now, it will forever go on as part os MS.

      This is why MS hates the Linux, because of the GPL. If MS were to be caught integrating Linux code into MS then they would be violating the GPL. With the BSD license they don't have to worry, they just keep the License in the file. That's why SCO also hates the BPL, beacuse they can't just integrate Linux code into SCO. Hmm but they arlready did that didn't they?

      • then how can BSD be dying??? Its not dying its being integrated into Microsoft code. It will never die now, it will forever go on as part os MS.

        Just like bits of my great-grandfather live on in G.W. Bush. (gee, doesn't that make me feel better??? No!)

        Although I agree that BSD lives on, it's not because of the organ transplants into Microsoft's code base.

    • This proves that BSD is dying, right? ;)

      No, it proves that it's spreading.

  • Cywin is better (Score:4, Informative)

    by ozzee ( 612196 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:54PM (#7085969)

    With cygwin you get true UNIX compatability and hundreds of unilities including ssh and X terminal sessions.

    ... better still, it does not cost $99.

    • Re:Cywin is better (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Deagol ( 323173 )
      I compared these two along time ago, along with a similar toolkit (U/WIN [att.com]) written by David Korn (author of the Korn shell). I was of the opinion that the Cygwin version ranked last. I liked the one MS ended up buying -- but not enough to pay money for it.

      I think I was impressed with the suite's ability to deal with hard links and case under Windows (which Cygwin didn't). I know NTFS can deal with these, but none of the MS-provided tools can.

      Off topic: Wasn't it called something before Interix? I thi

      • I compared these two along time ago, ...

        Cygwin has progressively become much better.

        You should give it a try now. I just toyed with hard links and they seem to work correctly.

      • Wasn't it called something before Interix? I think i had "NT" in name, but they changed it due to MS's "NT" trademark pressure.

        It was called "OpenNT"

        • Yup -- that was it. Thanks! That's been bugging me for a while.

          I contacted them and got a demo copy (sheesh -- must've been '97 or '98). OpenNT was pretty nice, but it was way too expensive for what it was (at least for the little shop I worked for at the time). We had fun playing with it, though.

      • Cygwin is very good these days. It would be nice if the X server got a little more work, but in general it is a very good and useful environment. It does still require a lot of cygwin-specific packages, unfortunately, but updating to a current config.sub and config.guess can often cure compilation problems. (Why so many packages have such obsolete autoconf files is beyond me.)

        Cygwin still has some problems, such as not offering a workaround for the problems with Windows' systemwide named pipes (like aux,

  • This is good news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by barries ( 15577 )
    I for one am really glad to see MS grabbing as much OSS code as they can for implementing the more standards compliant portions of their products, if only to see them ship more stable, secure code.

    I've a lot more faith in the code they grab from the *BSD trees than in their own internally generated code and, having to run WinXX a lot (my VMWare Workstation currently has 8 open machines in it and 6 of them are WinXX: WinNT (1), Win2K(4) and WinXP(1), two are RH8), I'd rather have the peace of mind.

    - Barri

  • Obvious (Score:1, Troll)

    by essdodson ( 466448 )
    To me it's obvious that MS realizes how valuable it is to work with the BSD community. Almost makes you wonder if they would work with the Linux community if they weren't such rabid revolutionaries all following in RMS's footsteps.
    • Almost makes you wonder if they would work with the Linux community if they weren't such rabid revolutionaries all following in RMS's footsteps.

      1) they aren't all rabid revolutionaries. A lot of folks just want to get things done. Linux is a pragmatist if there ever was one.
      2) They all don't follow RMS. Even many of the revolutionaries have wildly divergent views.

      It's not so much as Microsoft working with BSD community as it sees a good thing when it sees it. I have never heard of a MS code drop to B

    • I'm a Linux user, but I harbor no enmity toward BSD. I rarely hear other Linux users mouth off againt BSD either.

      However, when reading BSD-oriented articles, I frequently see BSD users make statements like yours against Linux. What does the BSD community have against Linux?

      Possibilities that come to mind:

      1. A feeling of superiority because BSD has been around longer
      2. A feeling of inferiority/resentment because business and media herald Linux as a revolution while mostly ignoring BSD
      3. Extreme moral

      • After reading the rest of the thread and noticing the preponderance of "BSD is dying" trolls, I'd like to amend my comment. :-)

        5. Offense at "BSD is dying" trolls

        However, I'm inclined to ignore those in the same way that I ignore the GNAA first posts and "In Soviet Russia" jokes.

  • sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by holzp ( 87423 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:55PM (#7087213)
    does this mean Microsoft is dying?
    • See www.billparish.com [billparish.com] for details. (-:
    • Well, MSN is clearly haemmoraging money, what with M$ closing th chat rooms and blocking off messenger to clients which don't pay a pricy licence fee. Microsoft are experts at propaganda, and this makes me wonder how deep th troubles must really run for it to show on th surface at all.

      # Ding Dong, the Witch is dead... #

  • So? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:16PM (#7088062)
    The TCP/IP stack in Windows NT was based on BSD too. The only annoying thing I find about that is that they tore it out and replaced it with a less-capable TCP/IP stack for Windows 2000 (many of the ioctl's such as set receive and send buffer size no longer work... that's progress!)
  • Now I see a lot of people here trying to bash MS because of this article...

    Heres a clue for all the readers out there: Slashdot is not a site for bashing Microsoft. "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" does NOT always translate into "Microsoft is Evil" "Open source Rocks".

    This is a very nice, informative article that points out >WHERE Microsoft got the technology for SFU. I for one am glad to know that technology from OpenBSD has been adopted by MS and incorporated into their OS.

    Now what would

    • Re:Hrm... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" does NOT always translate into "Microsoft is Evil" "Open source Rocks".

      eh?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close