I found this article about Microsoft SFU being built into the new Windows 2003 Server R2 very interesting.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Unix+changes/2100-1016_3-5845790.html?ta...
What does this signify?
Is Windows ready to really co-exist with Unix / Linux ... or are they going to try and provide similar functionality because they recognize it is better technology moving forward?
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 08:43 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I found this article about Microsoft SFU being built into the new Windows 2003 Server R2 very interesting. http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Unix+changes/2100-1016_3-5845790.html?ta... What does this signify?
It means Microsoft is now going to officially support the services. Before they treated SFU more like a "Resource Kit."
Is Windows ready to really co-exist with Unix / Linux ... or are they going to try and provide similar functionality because they recognize it is better technology moving forward?
They are all _legacy_ services -- NIS, NFS v2 (v3 yet?), Interix (formerly MKS) utilities, etc...
They literally have clients that require it.
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 12:59 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 08:43 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I found this article about Microsoft SFU being built into the new Windows 2003 Server R2 very interesting. http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Unix+changes/2100-1016_3-5845790.html?ta... What does this signify?
It means Microsoft is now going to officially support the services. Before they treated SFU more like a "Resource Kit."
---- it still sort of has that resource kit feel to it but you have to give them kudo's for continued development...embrace - extend - extinguish ;-)
Craig
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 11:00 -0700, Craig White wrote:
it still sort of has that resource kit feel to it but you have to give them kudo's for continued development...embrace - extend - extinguish ;-)
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 17:51 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
.... or are they going to do what they often do, 'adopt' standards, only to contaminate/corrupt them later with MS-specific extensions which conflict with other parts of the original standard set, etc. I know, sounding paranoid again ....
No, actually, it's quite different.
By going with Windows Servers and ActiveDirectory Services (ADS), they have _already_ gotten you to forgo open standards. I thought you guys were bright enough to realize that, but I guess this is just a Windows bashing list? No offense, but stop sometimes and _think_ -- there is no "embrace, extend, extinguish" going on here -- you are *ALREADY* using a 100% proprietary back-end.
In reality, It's the same approach they have with Services for NetWare. They support really old, basic interfaces that are very dated. So they are only legacy services, and provide no competition with modern Windows services. So they can say, "hey, we don't recommend those insecure services, but here, we offer them" not mentioning the fact that they are very old.
For once I'd like to see Microsoft offer some modern, non-Windows services. But until then, SFU does a "legacy enough" job for companies that need it. That's who it is released for. And nearly all the software is _not_ from Microsoft itself, but licensed from 3rd parties.
No, actually, it's quite different.
....
are only legacy services, and provide no competition with modern Windows services. So they can say, "hey, we don't recommend those insecure services, but here, we offer them" not mentioning the fact that they are very old.
The idea behind these moves - as I think - is putting one feet into the IT center of those companies who still use some very old software. Maybe where no Windows server existed. After the collagues had used to it and got certs from MS they can say "hey, you got experience, you've got good experience* why don't migrate your old software to Windows or write the newer version which use our X,Y solutions". * = they always say they have good results but that's what every company says and X,Y = eg. CRM, SQL2005, etc.
I think that's the idea. Many time I used SFU to create the neccesary attributes into AD and use pam_ldap and nss_ldap for authentication.
bye, Ago
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I found this article about Microsoft SFU being built into the new Windows 2003 Server R2 very interesting.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+Unix+changes/2100-1016_3-5845790.html?ta...
What does this signify?
Is Windows ready to really co-exist with Unix / Linux ... or are they going to try and provide similar functionality because they recognize it is better technology moving forward?
.... or are they going to do what they often do, 'adopt' standards, only to contaminate/corrupt them later with MS-specific extensions which conflict with other parts of the original standard set, etc. I know, sounding paranoid again ....
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Craig White -
Deim Ágoston -
Johnny Hughes -
William A. Mahaffey III