Microsoft Services for Unix and OpenBSD 150
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."
Re:What's your point? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The difference between BSD and GPL licensing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What's your point? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Cywin is better (Score:4, Informative)
With cygwin you get true UNIX compatability and hundreds of unilities including ssh and X terminal sessions.
Re:What's your point? (Score:3, Informative)