Microsoft Trying To Appeal to the Unix Crowd? 468
DigDuality writes "With the news that Windows 2008 (recently discussed on Slashdot) will have GUI-less installs and be fully scriptable, that they've opened up their communication protocols for non-commercial usage and are providing a patent covenant (Redhat Responds), and now finally an interesting rumor floating around that Microsoft will be taking on GNU directly. Has Microsoft totally switched gears in how it is approaching the Unix and FOSS sector for direct competition? According to an anonymous email leaked from a Microsoft employee, it seems Microsoft will be developing a framework that will be completely GNU compatible. Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, said on Friday (23 February) that they are aiming to restore a Unix-like environment to its former proprietary glory, at the same time proving that Microsoft is committed to interoperability. Ballmer emphasized that Microsoft's new strategy is to provide users with a complete package, and this includes users who like Unix environments. According to the supposedly leaked email, UNG, which stands for UNG's not GNU, is set to be released late 2009."
MS is a business (Score:5, Insightful)
Will believe it when I see it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like Satan trying to appeal to Christians.
*nix users have already eaten the apple and realized they were duped.
If the Nigerian princes are right, I'd say it's time to sell your Microsoft stock.
Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
First, build a language or system that runs existing programs.
Then change the compilers so they use MS-only, intel-only features by default
Then add attractive features at the source level.
Pretty soon, you can port *to* the new platform, but can't port away from it.
--dave
[PS: If you're already in that situation and want to port, send me private email]
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, these days Microsoft's lock-in is slipping away fast. More and more programs are showing up on the Mac, the web is going standards-compliant, and Java has ensured that Windows no longer locks customers in on the server side.
The way I see it, Microsoft is fighting. Which is step 3 of 4 in Ghandi's formula for success: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
non-commercial uses (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's the target? (Score:5, Insightful)
* people who hate M$'s guts all ready
* Windows users who want to see what the fuss is all about
* Manager who read this and think "my tech people like Unix, I can buy this and they will be happy".
Would anyone reading this want to touch it with a 10' pole? Anyone curious enough to find out what 'faster and easier' features they've added?
This is gonna be a dog, a distorted bizarro [wikipedia.org] unix.
Re:Windows Services for Unix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open protocols and MSFT not compatible (Score:2, Insightful)
They're NOT opening up to "open source" (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't "Microsoft's answer to Open Source", it's "Microsoft's answer to shareware".
Releasing these documents is meaningless to the open source community so long as they require money for "commercial use". It's not meaningless, but it's not the open source community that will benefit.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:2, Insightful)
Both Free Software and Open Source advocates agree that if you can't use the software for whatever you want, including a for-profit business, then its not Free/Open Source.
So Microsoft is up to its old tricks, trying to kill Free software since they can't Embrace and Extend (and Extinguish) it. The only difference is that now it's trying to make a faux-Free clone to kill it with.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS is a business (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I actually think that, in abstract, this sort of thing is very appropriate. Microsoft *should* be trying to appeal to the Unix/Linux crowd. They should be trying to make there stuff more interoperable, opening their protocols, giving headless servers, supporting GNU tools, etc. There's a case to be made for doing those sorts of things because of business interests, economic benefit, and technological need.
The only problem I see is that Microsoft has not earned people's trust that they'll do these things properly. They've earned a reputation for being willing to hobble their own products in order to maintain vendor lock-in and damage their competition.
Re:Too good to be true (Score:3, Insightful)
My god, the Unix kernel isn't the be all end all of OSes. What is with this attitude that Unix was the best?
To paraphrase a quote, "Unix is the worst operating system, except for all the others."
There's a reason that Unix dominates so many different areas, from the smallest embedded systems to the largest supercomputers: it's very, very flexible, and gets out of your way. It doesn't straight-arm you into "my way or the highway" like most operating systems.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
What Gandhi left out is that, nine times out of ten, the fourth step is "then you're never heard from again".
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft: UNG's not GNU (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it seems to me, that perhaps, there is a very slight possibility that "UNG _is_ UNIX" ???
I guess that when the going gets weird, the weird go pro... (yes, that's a stolen sig)
Re:I think its great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
also from the article link http://www.royalidea.com/site/?q=node/12 [royalidea.com] we get this section...
"The aim of UNG is to write complete GNU-like tools and frameworks that will be completely compatible with existing GNU software and standards. These tools will run natively on Vista. This means that software written for the GNU environment will be able to compile and run on Vista with little or no modifications. Major software currently running on GNU/Linux will be able to run natively on Vista."
Microsoft's strategy revolves around the idea of lock in. Looking at this from the point of view of lock in, it then sounds like Microsoft is trying to find a way to get GNU code over onto Vista. If you can't beat them, then assimilate anything useful they have
While Microsoft controls the OS, they hold the foundations upon which all their competitors try to build a living. They are not going to give that up, but any company switching to Linux is a problem for them. So this is another chess move to try to reduce corporate customers moving towards Linux. Loosing corporate customers is what Microsoft really fears. Big customers moving away from Windows sends out a message to other big customers to act in a similar way. Microsoft wants to prevent this slide, especially as more cheaper embedded systems are very likely in the near future and a lot of them are likely to be using Linux.
e.g. News such as 10 billion ARM CPU sales isn't going to help Microsoft as much as its going to help grow Linux support, as a lot of ARM CPUs are using embedded Linux. Add to this the number of other CPUs using embedded forms of Linux, then industry support for Linux is growing faster than just on desktop machines. Microsoft needs to move to either block or reduce this, to help maintain their OS lock-in.
e.g. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2207797/arm-hits-billion-processor [vnunet.com]
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Previously, Microsoft's fear was apps moving from Windows to OSS platforms. The fear was that if you could run your precious app on Linux, why keep Windows? Well, now they're talking about apps that started in the OSS world and trying to get people using them on Windows. That to me seems to be accurately fitting the hoary old gateway drug scare story! You dip your toe into OSS while still having all your comfy Windows apps on the box. You get to like the functionality, pretty soon the jump to Linux isn't all that abrupt, the desktop looks a little different but lookie here, all your apps are just fine.
By breaking down the barrier between Windows and OSS, Microsoft thinks Linux will lose the attractiveness and people will just run the OSS apps they like on Windows. I think it could accelerate the move the other direction. Well, wait five years and we'll see if I'm right.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Until their command tool gets closer in usability to xterm, and their GUI gets close to GNOME, I'll stick to Solaris if I want proprietary Unix.
I suppose they could hijack one of the BSDs
Re:I think its great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the problem with slashdot, you can't stand the fact that your opinion was refuted by someone. Oh heaven's no! someone disagrees with what I said? How dare they take offense when I use broad stereotypes and overreaching generalizations! Here is a hint, if someone thinks you're flamebait, then you're flamebait to them. I don't think anyone goes around randomly using their mod points- I may be mistaken on that though.
You have a +2 insightful as it currently stands, and I see more insightful thought in the "Microsoft sucks" bullshit that gets posted around here all the time. It's one thing to point out that mods missed a joke or something, but another to complain that someone took your polarizing comments the wrong way. THEY ARE POLARIZING, what the hell did you expect?
The point is, why read slashdot comments if everyone thinks like you? I'd hate to have opposing viewpoints here! I mean, it's discussion of why you're so right, not about the facts and merits of the article that no one reads. I post once and a while, and sometimes people like what I say, sometimes they don't, and sometimes people just don't give a rip (I've got a lot of 1 point posts with no replies). Do you think I'm constantly hitting refresh or checking my profile to see if someone replied? You must have more smugness than a prius forum* to write a comment, and then wait for the +1 funny/insightful modifiers to roll in that you actually took offense to someone disagreeing with you.
I'm not posting anonymously, because I could care less about the -1 I'll be getting in about 10 minutes.
*heard this from someone else, didn't want to take credit for it.
Re:I think its great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, kind of like Linux's modules...? There's no reason to recompile a kernel just to get a system working these days, nor has there been since about 2001; indeed, vendors tend to recommend against doing so. But you do at least get the chance to say "no, I know what I'm doing" and choose.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Why would I bother (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...then the next morning Steve Jobs calls (agai (Score:3, Insightful)
There are posts from people who are clearly technical saying "What the hell? Ship MacOS 10 already. This junk doesn't work at all!"
Apple is a company which can actually warn its _own_ core system parts to keep up with times. Like:
27.02.2008 13:33:07 com.apple.launchctl.System[2] Notice launchctl: Please convert the following to launchd:
It is a polite warning for now, in a year or so, it will say very harsh things and later, it will say "I am not loading it".
Can MS do such things? As long as they can't do, they will have these issues. Dark tactics like pushing NBC to show Olympics site to SilverLight having people etc. will keep them in business though.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, it was just enough POSIX for Microsoft to claim it was POSIX.1 compliant, which was just enough to satisfy some Department of Defense contracting requirements. A sort of wink and a nod in a way; allowing contractors to make bids for POSIX systems and end up getting the Windows they wanted.
Re:I think its great news! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you can apply the Apple patches to mainline GCC, and get the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact the this is lock-in: Mac developers have different expectations about GCC's operation than do linux users.