Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SUA Deprecated In Windows 8?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-does-being-assimilated-feel dept.

Unix 226

An anonymous reader writes "I just tried to install Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (SUA) on Windows 8 Preview and found that it's marked as DEPRECATED: 'Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (SUA) is a source-compatibility subsystem for compiling and running custom UNIX-based applications and scripts on a computer running Windows operating system. WARNING: SUA is deprecated starting with this release and will be completely removed in the next release. You should begin planning now to employ alternate methods for any applications, code, or usage that depend on this feature.'"

cancel ×

226 comments

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479700)

first :)

Re:first (-1, Offtopic)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479726)

dude, first was deprecated a long time ago. frosty prost was too I think.

Cygwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479716)

Why not just use Cygwin or better yet just use Linux.

Re:Cygwin (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479742)

I was wondering the same thing. What's the use of this SUA thingy?

Re:Cygwin (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479924)

I've never heard of it either. It's prolly Cygwin.

Re:Cygwin (5, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480566)

It's not Cygwin. It's an implementation of the POSIX APIs that goes directly to the NT APIs instead of through Win32.

I can't comment much on the tradeoffs except to say that I think it solves the problem of Cygwin's fork() being terrible. (SUA also provides a route to get multiple files with the same case-folded name but different case-sensitive names, which I don't think you can do with Cygwin since it goes through the Win32 API.)

Re:Cygwin (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479940)

Licenses? cygwin is GPL last time I checked.

Re:Cygwin (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480190)

SUA/SFU/Interix includes some gpl software (gcc, for example).

Re:Cygwin (3, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480358)

Reaching back a bit, I think the use was that it meant that Windows NT and successors could tick the "Posix compliant" tick box that was required by some (mainly publice sector) contracts.

Perhaps Posix is no longer on so many checklists.

SUA vs Cygwin (Re:Cygwin) (4, Informative)

mewyn (663989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480542)

So, many people keep wondering why use SUA vs Cygwin?

Well, first off the basic thing is speed. SUA has kernel hooks for syscall translation. It's able to do many of the POSIX syscalls in a much quicker fashion than Cygwin. Cygwin, on the other hand, does *everything* for POSIX syscalls in userland, causing it to be slow (for example, a fork, at times can take *seconds* to complete).

So, SUA is much better this way... problem is, it's tricky to get things to compile for it, I never did get things building reliably for it. Cygwin has a full suite of programs already built, and it's much easier to build existing Linux/UNIX/POSIX programs for than SUA.

Being a Windows user who needs *NIX tools for many processing tasks, what do I use? Cygwin. Easier to set up and get running. The speed drives me insane, though. My login script, which runs many programs before bringing up my bash prompt will take 5-6 seconds.

Ideal solution: Hyper-V or some other VM software running a VM in the background that I can get a terminal to, that has filesystem access to my system drives too.

Re:Cygwin (2)

dmmiller2k (414630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480156)

SUA was once called SFU (Services For UNIX), and it replaces the built-in POSIX subsystem which has been an integral part of NT since NT 3.1.

The built-in POSIX subsystem alone was basically useless as shipped, since it came without many command line utilities, but SFU (now SUA) upgraded it to a more or less useful configuration, including a series of commands built to use the API; in some ways it accomplished the same thing as Cygwin, but in a different way.

In my opinion, Cygwin is vastly better since it contains more utilities, is more aggressively maintained and updates are more frequent.

Re:Cygwin (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480558)

SUA was once called SFU (Services For UNIX), and it replaces the built-in POSIX subsystem which has been an integral part of NT since NT 3.1.

SUA was once called SFU, which has been replacing STFW (and STFW's predecessor, RTFM) for years now.

Metro (3, Funny)

jdkc4d (659944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479734)

I guess they want to come out with a new "metro"-version.

Re:Metro (1, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479844)

Nope. SUA is predominantly used for console applications. They've moved on from "Extend" to "Extinguish" now.

Re:Metro (1)

tmcb (2136918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480178)

I think he intended to be funny, but I'm not really sure.

Re:Metro (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480590)

You're probably right. Mea culpa for posting so early.

Cygwin (4, Insightful)

paugq (443696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479744)

Why would someone use SUA, which is only contains very old versions of the software it bundles? There is Cygwin, which is a much much better alternative. Sometimes, even MinGW is a valid alternative because it generates a native application (though it requires some porting effort, which may be unacceptable in many cases).

Re:Cygwin (1, Troll)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479802)

Commercial customers that require production-quality platforms with enterprise-level support probably will avoid Cygwin.

Re:Cygwin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479866)

How about this? http://www.redhat.com/services/custom/cygwin/

Re:Cygwin (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479882)

Except Cygwin was perfectly in enterprise shops I worked in but they were just small shops like Sabre.

Re:Cygwin (2)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479986)

Commercial customers that require production-quality platforms with enterprise-level support are probably already using *nix.

Re:Cygwin (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481092)

Mainly because SUA is faster, since there's no translation to Win32 - it sits directly on top of the kernel.

Re:Cygwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37481160)

I've seen it used to allow *inx boxes to Windows Storage servers for fast, ACL'd file access. That's about it.

Who uses that anyway? (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479746)

Cygwin or UnxUtils [sourceforge.net] work great.

Re:Who uses that anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480154)

UWIN seems to work well enough

Re:Who uses that anyway? (1)

klui (457783) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480440)

UnxUtils hasn't been updated since 2003. I'm not sure when SUA has been updated but it can't be too far behind.

I feel like... (-1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479750)

I feel like we're dealing with the old Microsoft again.

Re:I feel like... (5, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479836)

Or maybe no one is using it, and its not worth the support headaches. As others have, and will continue to suggest throughout the comments in this article, cygwin, mingwsys, UnxUtils or even a full blown unix VM are fine substitutes for SUA. Now, if you are actually using SUA in production, and this negatively effects you, that would be interesting to hear about.

Re:I feel like... (1)

TheAmazingRyRy (2009048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480090)

Yeah, no one uses it because it never worked well anyway. I've tried a few different versions in the past. Every time after installing it, I'd get frequent BSODs. They went away when I removed it.

Re:I feel like... (3, Insightful)

adonoman (624929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480134)

a full blown unix VM

That's the key right there. With virtualization software in the state that it is now, why would you run POSIX applications shoe-horned into windows, when you can have a proper POSIX system running in a VM.

Re:I feel like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480376)

It's better to run Windows in a VM on a POSIX system though rather than the other way around.

Windows in a VM on a Linux host runs great. Linux in a VM on a Windows host runs like shit.

Re:I feel like... (2)

tmcb (2136918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480394)

The problem is that VMs consequently bring an isolation level that doesn't allow you, for example, to work at the native filesystem. You cannot easily grep something in your "My Documents" folder, as far as I know and, even if you can, you'll be consuming way more resources than needed, which may bring consequences as bigger execution times. They're a great solution for a lot of problems, though, don't get me wrong.

Re:I feel like... (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480446)

back to the old adage of "you can run linux, but you must run it under windows". Yep, same old microsoft.

Re:I feel like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480716)

Here's a thought:

How about you just run Linux...*without* windows?

Why should Microsoft provide you a means to do this from *within* windows?

"You can run Linux...however the hell you damn want to....because that lame-ass subsystem...wasn't Linux."
-James Tiberius Kirk

Re:I feel like... (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480694)

With software in the state that it is now, why would you run shoe-horned windows, when you can have a proper POSIX system running on your computer?

Not a surprise (0, Flamebait)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479752)

As MS cannot compete (and never could compete) on technical merit, of course they have to remove any compatibility with industrial standards they can. This is a leftover from a time when MS thought they had good technology. By now they know they do not and never will.

Re:Not a surprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479992)

Or maybe they know that no one cares about Linux either way and that nobody ever installed that feature?

Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (0, Troll)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479754)

Seeing it more and more frequently since Taco left is getting really tiresome. Give it a rest.

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479780)

Are you implying that SUA isn't being deprecated?

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (0)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479812)

It's the constant drumbeat of OMG MICROSOFT IS EVIL articles lately. Pandering to the least-common denominator.

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480618)

It's the constant drumbeat of uninformed speculation that gets me worn out. Pandering to leet k3wlness rather than fact-based criticism.

The FACTS are probably nothing like what's being asserted here.

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480080)

Are you implying that it actually matters or is in any way an "evil" activity?

This stuff isn't used that much anymore on Windows. If the usage isn't there, why continue to support it?

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479804)

I agree. It's not fair to Microsoft, for everyone to always be talking about them. Can't the press just leave that company alone and quit covering their products?

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480086)

But they make it so easy.

Re:Can we stop with the anti-Microsoft FUD? (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480720)

What FUD? This is an actual story about actual facts involving MS. That is NOT FUD.

What Fear? What uncertainty? what doubt?

Cygwin? (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479756)

I think Cygnus Solutions solved your problem about 20 years ago.

Re:Cygwin? (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479872)

Have you ever actually tried to use Cygwin as a *nix-compatibility layer in a production environment. The word "kludge" doesn't seem to begin describe it.

Re:Cygwin? (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479962)

I agree with you entirely - but the author is stupid enough to be relying on SUA so rather than that statement that "it is a kludge" I'd say it's a question of "is it a better kludge?".

Re:Cygwin? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479988)

Yes. Where I work, we have a production load and test process for some of our hardware that depends on cygwin. We have had cygwin cause problems for us only once, and that happened to be on a non-production station. (Production stations had all their files on the local hard drive - this machine was performing some operations on LAN shares and the Cygwin issue was related to LAN shares.)

Now the Xilinx ISE toolchain that was being called from our scripts hosted in Cygwin... ugh that's a whole other story. Xilinx ISE is a consistent nightmare to get properly installed and configured.

I'm not surprised that MS is deprecating SUA - almost no one used it because it utterly sucked and was massively crippled compared to cygwin.

Re:Cygwin? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480194)

And cygwin is massively crippled compared to *nix. Wherever possible, I try to get native user land ports, and if I need more advanced things, well, there happen to be a number of open source *nix-like operating systems out there. It's one thing to want to run sed on your Windows box, quite another to basically try to port over the entire *nix environment.

Re:Cygwin? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480966)

The facts are that SUA is no longer important.
Depending on you individual situation you should be ...

A) Running in Unix or Linux.

B) Running a Unix or Linux VM.

C) Running Cygwin.

I can think of many cases where one is better than the other.
I can not think of a case where SUA is the correct answer anymore.
There might be a few. My guess is though they are exceedingly rare.

Re:Cygwin? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481172)

I think you are exactly right. Most people in my experience that use SUA use it very little just to run that "one little script" occasionally or whatever. For that you can use a VM. Performance isn't that big a deal for something that is occasionally used. If performance is a big deal than you should be running *NIX natively. Most *NIX stuff used in the commercial environment are either very high end workstation apps or server based apps anyways ... why would you want to run a oddball compatibility tool in a server environment rather than native is crazy. Spend the extra 10k or so and get a real *NIX server.

Alternate methods (0)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479758)

My alternate method is Linux...

Re:Alternate methods (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479810)

Don't worry, UEFI will make sure that's not a solution for much longer...

Re:Alternate methods (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480046)

I don't think so. Even if that is attempted it isn't hardware, it's firmware. Firmware can be updated.

Re:Alternate methods (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480500)

I think that's the whole point of UEFI...that the firmware can't be changed (at least not easily).

Re:Alternate methods (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480628)

I don't think so. Even if that is attempted it isn't hardware, it's firmware. Firmware can be updated.

UEFI cannot be user-updated, that is its whole security model. You can bring it in to Dell and ask them to install Grub on it though, I'm sure.

Source (1)

WhoseSideAreWeOn (1916768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479764)

Do you have a credible source stating that it will be removed in the next release? Deprecated usually means that the functionality is being replaced by something new. Your warning for people to make plans for alternate methods seems premature.

Re:Source (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480124)

Jesus, did you even read TFS? "WARNING: SUA is deprecated starting with this release and will be completely removed in the next release." Or do you not trust what Microsoft themselves tells you about their products (hmmm, can I get back to you on that one ...)?

Re:Source (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480174)

If you read the summary, it says Deprecated in Win8 and scheduled to be removed in a future version. Of course, by "a future version", that could be Win10 for all we know. MS has deprecated features in the past that remained well beyond the "next" release.

Re:Source (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481104)

DirectDraw has been depreciated for over a decade, but still works fine in Win7.

Re:Source (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480332)

Why yes there's a source here: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/09/22/1354258/SUA-Deprecated-In-Windows-8

Dumbfuck.

It makes sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479768)

Honestly it makes sense to drop support for SUA. Stay native on their own homegrown stuff and let people who need it run full-on linux in Hyper-V.

projects depending on this (2)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479800)

Well, I actually failed to find a project that would really depend on SUA. Anyone knows about anything that would be harmed by this change?

Can you tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479824)

... one person who actually uses this?

Other than the author of TFA.

Even MinGW has to be more compatible with modern unix/linux than SUA.

Re:Can you tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480298)

Our software vendor requires it to operate their ancient payroll/HR app... so... "we do" QQ

Now you have it, now you dont. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479960)

This is how it is with microsoft. You cant rely on ANYthing from them - they can just shut down or bail out on you (bcentral, silverlight, soon .net), and you will have to spend a lot of time and funds to go around the pain they cause you.

Re:Now you have it, now you dont. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480198)

Can you offer some PROOF of Microsoft planning on killing .net? Any proof whatsoever? I've read about it repeatedly on /., but it's all based on conjecture because Metro is going to use HTML+JS, which is also completely ignoring the fact that there is an entire desktop platform sitting alongside the metro platform fully capable of running .net applications.

So, care to offer up some actual proof of MS stating that they are going to deprecate the .net platform, or are you going to admit that you're just spreading FUD?

Re:Now you have it, now you dont. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480718)

isnt the trail of stuff microsoft killed proof enough ? most recent was silverlight. .net people were already going amok in their community forum, all ablaze due to rumors tied to win 8. why the fuck should i need to educate people who have not followed the news properly enough ?

Re:Now you have it, now you dont. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481146)

most recent was silverlight.

Silverlight wasn't really killed in the niche where it was actually being used (for intranet apps, rather than as a Flash killer) - it just got a facelift. If you actually look at Win8 UI framework, it's basically Silverlight reimplemented in native code with a bunch of namespaces renamed. You can port a Silverlight app to Win8 in a few hours at most.

.net people were already going amok in their community forum, all ablaze due to rumors tied to win 8.

"Rumors" being the key word here. Going from "you can now write apps in HTML/JS" to ".NET is dead" was quite a stretch, but there were enough people willing to feed the rumor mill for the sake of FUD.

why the fuck should i need to educate people who have not followed the news properly enough ?

It looks like you're the one not following the news, since you have obviously missed all the official announcements about .NET in Win8 that happened a week ago.

Re:Now you have it, now you dont. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480354)

I still rue the day they dropped proper MS-DOS from Windows. So much great software developed in that environment, you'd think they'd still be updating it today.

Re:Now you have it, now you dont. (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481124)

We relied on FoxPro from the 2.5 DOS version through the upgrade path to Visual FoxPro6.0. Then, MS announced on the UniversalThread VFP forum that they were dropping VFP and set up classes on that forum to teach .NET, the "new" developer paradigm. They bestowed "MVP" badges to prominent VFP forum members who then played the .NET flutes that led the children out of the VFP villages. The outrage among a large number of the approximately 300,000 VFP developers, world wide, was palatable. MS was taken back and "recanted" the discontinuance, at least in print. The subsequent version releases: 7, 8 and 9, were essentially mere updates and MS announced in 2007 that V10 would not be released. By then it didn't matter. When MS initially announced that they were dropping VFP, we immediately dropped VFP and after a few months trying out various replacements chose Qt as our framework API to replace VFP, with Oracle and PostgreSQL as the back end.

Now, it seems, MS has kicked the .NET/C# programmers to the curb, announcing that HTML5 and Javascript (??!!!!) were the "new" dev tools. Oh, .NET and Silverlight developers needn't worry ... their tools will be "along side" the new paradigm. Mono developers? Their tool has always been a day late and a dollar short, regardless of the De Icaza propaganda, and many feel it was Microsoft's way to sidetrack a lot of FOSS developers, but not many jumped on that train. Now it seems that the video showing "Monkey Boy" dancing around the stage, sweating profusely, and shouting "Developers, developers, developers .....", ad nausum, is a cruel joke indeed. Those who were made a monkey of are the .NET/C#/Silverlight developers. How much collective energy, time and money have they sunk into their .NET projects, only to have them relegated to a desert island? I'd wager hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, of development costs and products were lost.

Microsoft up to its old tricks (-1)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479982)

Watching Microsoft lately, it seems likely to me that Microsoft is starting to use its current OS hegemony to make coexistence with other OS's increasingly difficult. Some minor anecdotes: our current corporate email system is from MS. Most employees access it via webmail. Lately MS has made it nearly unusable on browsers other than Internet Explorer. It was always less than ideal using Firefox to access it, but now it requires re-entry of the password nearly every minute. The password reset utility requires a silly workaround, requiring a browser restart. I personally don't use this system, but other users will likely be irritated enough to fall back to using Windows, rather than their Mac laptop. The corporate Wifi network also seems Windows-centric, with the login process being cumbersome on non-windows laptops. The recent Slashdot posting about new Windows 8 PC's having the potential to lock out other operating systems also gives me chills, and fits my hypothesis.

During its rise to power, Microsoft was known to use technical sabotage to destroy its opponents. It would write its OS in ways that would cause competing software to either crash or run sub-optimally. This, along with deeply unethical business tactics were largely responsible for Microsoft's dominance. I am sceptical that Microsoft will be able to succeed in preserving its current dominant position. Much of the computing world is now based on the web, where more open standards are often demanded. However, that doesn't mean that MS can't do harm trying to hold on to its dominant position.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480102)

If you're bitching about Outlook Web Access, try setting your cookies to a non-paranoid mode. Works perfectly fine in Firefox with normal cookies.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480196)

Yup. My guess is that the person who had issues with OWA and Firefox was using excessively aggressive privacy settings.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480824)

I have another issue with OWA, the version for alternate browsers is a lot different
from the one presented to IE users.
You can't even access certain mail folders

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480330)

MS Exchange 2010's OWA (Outlook WebApp) was designed to work with standards-compliant browsers whereas previous versions worked properly only with IE. See http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/en-us/outlook-web-app.aspx where they explicitly mention supporting Firefox, Chrome and Safari.

It sounds to me like your employer is using either an older version of OWA or has misconfigured it somewhere along the line as I use OWA from both Firefox and Chrome regularly and have never experienced any of the issues you mention...

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (0)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480336)

I'm very far from a Microsoft fan, but it's unfair to say that they used technical sabotage to destroy their opponents. You can talk about the lawsuits all day, but lawsuit claims are exaggerated, always. The thing about Microsoft's technical sabotage was always this: they didn't need to. The world was willingly walking toward creating a Microsoft monopoly. I don't think the sabotage helped much.

In regards to the particular victims...

-Stacker was a time-limited product, completely dependent on Microsoft, so of course they got eaten. All Microsoft had to do was to change their fs and Stacker was pretty much out of business. Bad business model. Should be a rule that you dont' create a model that depends on Microsoft.

-Novell committed suicide. Their licensing program (3.5" Novell-issued license floppies for each server, required for reinstall and the whole network squawks if you try to use the same one twice . Hope they didn't go bad in the interim...) needed massive modification to respond to Microsoft (xxx-111111 was a global license code for NT4) , and they didn't do it in time. Most shops went to NT just because it was easier to deal with. The Novell clients were pretty buggy too - that wasn't Microsoft's fault that they didn't make sure their code was bulletproof before it was issued.

-Lotus committed suicide. People didn't want to mix and match applications, they wanted a suite. Lotus didn't have one on offer till too late, and by then it was embedded inside IBM, where software innovation goes to hide. IBM couldn't market software out of a wet paper bag. Look what happened to Notes/Domino, a technically superior system to anything Microsoft had until just a few years ago. IBM licensing policies didn't help much there, either. Or OS/2...though there were more mistakes there than just poor marketing.

All of the above would have happened without Microsoft's sabotage. I'm far from denying that any of the sabotage happened. I'm just saying that it wasn't very consequential. It was just stupid and immature in my view.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481166)

DR-DOS, Wordperfect, Ami pro count as direct sabotage in modifying their code to break competitors products. But it could certainly be argued that the entire "embrace, extend, extinguish" plan is ultimately a form of technical sabotage. Their executives emails have specifically mentioned causing competitors products to crash as a primary goal in defeating them. How can you say it wasn't consequential when it is coming from the very top of the company? I agree the sabotage probably wasn't necessary to gain market dominance, but it does demonstrate the complete lack of business ethics.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480386)

That post was nice and dramatic and everything, but SUA was a piece of shit that nobody used anyway. If you need to run POSIX applications on Windows there are ways to do it that don't suck. "Hegemony," "rise to power," give me a fucking break dude.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480820)

Y+Us e missed the point. They are cutting out something people use, and doing it rather quickly.

The fact that it may be a PoS is irrelevant. This is quick even for MS. Deprecated, and then removed in the next release candidate of the same version? Yeah, that's just crappy.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481182)

This is quick even for MS. Deprecated, and then removed in the next release candidate of the same version?

It is quick, but not that quick. Where does it say that it'll be removed in the next release candidate? TFS speaks of "release"; this normally actually means RTM (as in, not a prerelease).

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480548)

Newer versions of OWA (2007, 2010) working amazingly well in alternative browsers. You're doing something wrong, or someone messed up the authentication settings on the OWA server.

Re:Microsoft up to its old tricks (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481080)

OWA for Exchange 2010 works much better in Firefox than it does in IE6.

Microsoft has end-of-lifed the SUA team (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480030)

We opened a case with Microsoft awhile back regarding this issue. A high level manager called us back and begged us to find another (non-Microsoft) solution. The team is going away and soon.

SSO (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480056)

Other than the LDAP extensions SFU/SUA added to the active directory what else was really used from it? It seemed to me that anything else you would use from it would be better handled with a real UNIX or Linux install, either on it's own box or in a VM.

cygwin (0)

cslewis2007 (1120851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480066)

There are serious licensing issues involved with using cygwin - anything that links to the cygwin1.dll is tainted by the GPL and it's source must be released. You can by a license from RedHat, but it is very expensive. MKS had a competitive product that didn't have the licensing issue (although you had to buy runtimes for each machine or machine instance you wanted to run you app on. Will cygwin even work under Windows 8?

VMWare.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480216)

The ONLY way to run any Windows OS is under a real OS like Unix.

I got tired of re-installing the Windows for my In-laws every time I visited since they invariably managed to get their system infected with various little nasties even after I installed every type of protection I could think of - proving "there is no patch for human stupidity." Finally I was fed up and installed Fedora - could have used any Linux version but I had the DVD for that with me. Installed VMWare on it, and installed Windows under it - got it to the point where everything they use was baselined and created a snapshot. Now when they call about not being able to print, or any of a dozen other things, I walk them through reverting back to the baseline and branching. Then when I arrive I pull all of their data from the dead-branch onto a new clone and start again. Makes life so much easier when you use Windows for what it should be used for - just for the computer illiterate... If you assume it will be compromised, and become useless, you can plan accordingly.

Now to be fair I have several Windows OS boxes at home that never have these problems. But then, I try to minimize my target foot-print as much as possible, whereas they use MS products for everything, including IE and Adobe Flash - so there isn't much that can be done to reduce their target foot-print. MS isn't EVIL - it's just an inherently unsafe OS. Nothing wrong with that. Since they make money off it without having to perform, there is no reason for them to create a product that is more secure.

Windows itself seems close to being deprecated (5, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480270)

Is this a shock to anyone after The Week of Windows 8 Hype? If there was a theme running through all of the stories it was this: Windows as you have known it is deprecated, a traditional Windows desktop will be available (certainly on x86, perhaps on arm) for those who are determined enough to figure out how to reenable it but don't expect it to last much longer. If Windows and native Win32 executables themselves are on the chopping block why would they have any interest in maintaining a UNIX command line layer?

Win32 (and UNIX more so) isn't going to lend itself to the sort of app store lockdown Microsoft is moving to. If you have a choice of buy Win32 apps/games at Walmart/Gamestop and Microsoft gets no taste of the action or buy everything at the App Store and give Microsoft 30%, which do you think they are going to 'nudge' you toward? And by 'nudge' I mean turn your PC into an iPhone with hard crypto locks and remove all options that do not let them rake off their 30 points.

Re:Windows itself seems close to being deprecated (2, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480636)

> Windows as you have known it is deprecated, a traditional Windows desktop will be available (certainly on x86, perhaps on arm) for those who are determined enough to figure out how to reenable it but don't expect it to last much longer. If Windows and native Win32 executables themselves are on the chopping block

I think that's going to last about 6 months after Win8 release, and then they're going to realize that early adopters are putting keyboards and mice on their tablets and struggling to re-enable the traditional desktop because that interface reused from Windows Phone 7 isn't doing it for them, and the rest of us are waiting to see what Windows 9 looks like.

Then Win8 service pack 1 will add back in a bunch of stuff they had taken out, and make the traditional desktop the default.

Just sayin'

Re:Windows itself seems close to being deprecated (1)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480942)

That may be Microsoft's plan, but it's a real loser for expensive specialty software. At my work, we have plenty of technical apps that cost more than the Windows machine they're running on, even though they require fairly hefty hardware. There's no way a company writing a $10K app is going to be willing to hand over $3K to Microsoft to get it on their appstore. They'd rather port to another, more open platform. Stealing those kinds of apps away from Unix workstations was a big win for Microsoft 10-20 years ago. It will be an equally big loss if they drive them back to Unix/Linux in an attempt to cash in as a gatekeeper.

And that's not the only big loss. Many larger businesses have their own custom apps and packages that they've written in-house and depend on to keep their companies running. Making Windows depend exclusively on something like the appstore to install software will kill that market and push Windows out of big business. Unless there's some kind of Windows for Business solution that lets you set up your own software sources, Microsoft will be killing the golden goose.

Other Unix features? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37480372)

They provide other Unix features as part of Service for Unix. Are they keeping these? Among these are the NFS Server, NFS Client, Password Syncing tools, NIS Servers and telnet server.

Now a lot of these are a bit 90's Unix, telnet not SSH and NIS. But I've found the NFS Server is pretty handy sometimes.Even though they don't seem to exactly rush to update last time I looked (i.e no NFSv4).

This is (4, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480490)

If you look at the kind of work Microsoft has put into the Linux kernel recently relating to Hyper-V...

https://lwn.net/Articles/451243/ [lwn.net]

One might gather that it's not worth the trouble for NT to ape Unix anymore. Chances are pretty good Linux is the new SUA and virtualization will be the new supported solution to this problem. I mean, why should Microsoft bother maintaining its own Unix tools when they're actively maintained elsewhere? Given the work they've done on both virtualization and linux integration I would say that there's no great conspiracy here.

Re:This is (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480896)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. What's bothering me though are these draconian "walled gardens" that are continuing to be pushed onto us. What's bothering me even more is the move towards "leaseable" applications that if not in whole at least in part reside on a corporate server farm somewhere rather than my hard drive. Not only are we losing traditional ownership but the ability to use them is depending upon fragile infrastructure. They are creating huge vulnerabilities subject to the whims of both nature and governments.

Re:This is (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481164)

They didn't put that "work" into their code voluntarily. They were forced to do it because they were in violation of the GPL.

Re:This is (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481200)

They didn't put that "work" into their code voluntarily. They were forced to do it because they were in violation of the GPL.

I don't see how that has anything to do with virtualization being a strategy for Microsoft. Whether linux kernel drivers are packaged or pushed upstream is just an operational consideration.

SUA is pants (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480556)

I think this is yet another indication that SUA is pants and everyone should be using Cygwin.

The problem, for those asking, is customers (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480936)

Windows-only shops may tolerate you insisting on SUA, because it's a Microsoft product.

Start talking about CygWin or VMs and their eyes glaze over, they suck their thumbs, and moan "Wasn't on my MCSE, hippies will eat me, wasn't on my MCSE, hippies will eat me."

I know that there's not really any significant difference in support terms (other than not getting the flakey almost-POSIX and BSODs that continue to burden SUA), and that they'd be better off switching to a native POSIX environment anyway, but the man with the ear of the man with the money doesn't want his "skill" set to be devalued overnight. And that's why SUA still has (had) a place.

Re:The problem, for those asking, is customers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37481186)

Those people are all going to die of acute boneitis when they first clap eyes on Metro anyway.

SUA is already dead in Windows 7 (2)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480952)

They've killed it by only supporting the features necessary to re-share existing NFS services using SMB and AD. Integration of Windows with non-AD LDAP and Kerberos is virtually non-existent and requires a ton of work and 3rd party utilities to get it working. I don't think NFSv4 is even supported.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...