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:5, Interesting)
This shows that the Services for Unix aren't derived from SCO sources, and therefore MS lied.
Or something.
Re:Wooo (Score:2, Interesting)
Administrator ability to log in as another user, without their password, using their environment.
Ability to easily assign a printer or share you've set up as administrator to all other users of the machine/domain... and don't even mention group policies (what a cluster fuck).
Ability to easily assign drive mappings/printers dependant on what groups a users belongs to (again don't EVEN say you can do thit with group policies).
Windows servers were obviously not designed from the standpoint of an administrator setting resources up for users.
Re:What's your point? (Score:1, Interesting)
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
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Re:This proves it... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Cywin is better (Score:3, Interesting)
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 think i had "NT" in name, but they changed it due to MS's "NT" trademark pressure.
So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This proves it... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, He went down with his ship... and (presumably) was eaten by some fishes
(who were eaten by some fishes
and swallowed by a whale
[[ for those of you who remember 'The Point']])