CentOS - Sep 2005 - [OT] Services for Unix being built into Win2K3-R2

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?tag=cd.top

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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050903/fba01491/attachment-0001.sig>

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?tag=cd.top
> 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.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith     b.j.smith at ieee.org     http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman

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?tag=cd.top
>
>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 ....

-- 
	William A. Mahaffey III
---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Remember, ignorance is bliss, but
	willful ignorance is LIBERALISM !!!!