| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Review: Windows Services for UNIX | |
|
||
| Time: 16:28 EST/21:28 GMT | News Source: OS News | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Thanks Eugenia. Everyone knows what Microsoft does by now. What some people do not know is that Microsoft releases a system integration software named Windows services for UNIX. The purpose of SFU is so that people who must administer UNIX server with a Microsoft Windows PC can do it with ease, it also serves as an application migration platform as well as way to run legacy UNIX applications from within a Windows environment.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:48:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/17/2003 5:15:39 PM |
|
linuxhippie - Actually the bulk of SFU is commercial software Microsoft that has licensed for resale or written themselves.
The only GPL'd stuff they seem to be including is gcc and a few other tools. So you're right in that they are including GPLed code, but the way they are making money is by combining it with proprietary code. Is that how we should view the GPL? Take advantage of people when possible? |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/17/2003 6:10:25 PM |
| Linuxhippie, the cost of the software is $99... I don't think they're all that interested in making money with it. It's there to make the decision and implementation easier for those considering moving from Unix to Windows. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/17/2003 6:11:27 PM |
| Linuxhippie (#6)--you understand your own sentiment? :) |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/17/2003 10:57:52 PM |
|
linuxhippie - Why the developers who gave their code away so MS can make money on it, of course, silly.
cba-3.14 - "the-GPL-is-all-driven-by-hate-of-Microsoft" Microsoft? No, but if you read the GNU Manifesto it is all driven by hate of commercial software. Do you have another rational explanation for it which does not setup the BSD license as a better alternative? And yes, MS using GPLed software is self-loathing. |
| #5 By 116 (66.69.198.173) at 6/18/2003 4:28:16 AM |
|
How can anything dissapear from the public domain?
That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously you just dont like the fact that people take your supposedly free code and use it. I have yet to meet anyone working with os software who makes any kind of money at all. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2003 11:10:36 AM |
|
cba-3.14 - "it's just a matter of not wanting people to profit from your code"
Ok, but we've just proved that to be false, right here in post #1. "It doesn't mean you are against commercial software" But you said it was for not wanting people to profit... what do you think the term commercial means? "With GPL, it doesn't dissappear," Either does it with the BSD license. The nice thing about the BSD license is that it allows developers to profit from *THEIR OWN* code by combining it with yours in a more straight forward way than the componentized development that the GPL encourages. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/19/2003 12:24:31 AM |
|
"I think Linux makes the OS a commodity and there is no reason to pay for a closed source OS."
Great, I think you should use it. I don't think it's worth the price tag, because it doesn't offer me anything fundamentally better. It doesn't reduce my time to market, it doesn't reduce my development time, it doesn't offer anything new or innovative which makes me otherwise more efficient. It's like trying to drive in the Indianapolis 500 with a set of Duralon tires you bought on sale at Mills Fleet Farm for $40/each. Yep, you saved some money, but what was the point? I'm a free market capitalist(despite what daz thinks). Much of the growth of the economy in the 1990's was directly due to the software industry, an industry that Microsoft may not have created but most certainly legitimized. Now I work for a company today building applications for use internally and via our web precense. But that doesn't mean that I would not enjoy to be able to work for myself someday, building and selling software for consumption by regular consumers. People who support the GPL wish to destroy that potential for me. They think we should go back in time to when artisans worked either for wealthy benefactors or governments. Toiling away so that others might profit from our labor. I do not see such a thing as being desirable. Now I honestly don't think it has much of a chance in happening, but it's a lot like Circuit City's DivX if I don't speak out against it, it stands a better chance of taking hold. I have a little bit of Ayn Rand in me, in that I form opinions based upon which path I think has the most in it for me. But I also have a bit of Adam Smith in that what I really prefer is the path that not only has the most in it for me, but has the most in it for my fellow citizens. That is, it doesn't have to all belong to me, I'm perfectly willing to share. I think by sharing the wealth between everybody, we all benefit. It's that concept of sharing opportunity as a society which is what America was founded upon. It's what I call the American Way. So I'm looking at these paths and choices that I have. On the one hand I see success stories like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others who made billions, but also in the process have created jobs for tens of thousands upon thousands many of who now benefit from also being extremely wealthy. And from consuming the products that these men helped to bring to the market, other people have benefited and improved their lives and what they produced and further hired tens of thousands of additional people. This pattern repeats itself... As a result of this success in the United States, our economy has expanded to include people in Mexico, Taiwan, China, Phillipines, India, Mozambique, etc. etc. Then on the other side I see a bitter old hippy, who doesn't just hate the fact that Buffet and Gates are worth billions... he despises the fact that tens of thousands of people have been employed due to their success. Why? Because a bunch of people left the MIT AI lab back in the 1980's to try to turn AI development into a profitable business. I look at these two sides of the coin, and I think it's obvious which one makes the most sense to me, my nation, my society, my family, my home. I'm still waiting for you to convince me otherwise. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/19/2003 12:29:10 AM |
|
BTW, if you think I'm overgeneralizing... Show me how I'm wrong.
Show me how I can take my talent of writing software and make money on it using the GPL license. I have no talent for writing books, and I firmly believe that good high quality software should not require support either to install or run beyond simple instructions. I don't have a problem with Open Source, I've given stuff away with the BSD license because I thought others might benefit. In fact I'd really love it if all commercial software came with the source code. Doesn't mean I don't want to pay for it. If I'm gaining productivity as a result of someone else's work, I'm more than willing to give them a percentage. But I can see having the source code would help me out of some binds, like older legacy solutions that need to be tweaked or fixed to survive, etc. But there's a difference between modifying for maintainance and giving it away to all my friends. Those are my fundamental issues. I don't see the GPL culture addressing these in anything but a negative fashion. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/19/2003 11:56:35 AM |
|
linuxhippie - "It's simple"
I don't see how it's simple developing an OS or a database, nor do I see any market need for that. It would be an inefficient use of my time. It would take me years to develop that, whereas for only a few days salary I can buy Windows 2003 and Sql Server. No the key to succeeding is to come up with something different, unique, etc. Don't be so bitter hippie... We'll continue our discussion in the 'Linux not ready for the Enterprise thread' |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:48:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
