Got questions? Go ahead: Ask me anything!
(dead link) thinks that Microsoft has bigger plans for its
Services for Unix.
They suggested that this might have been part of the reason Microsoft paid licensing fees to SCO ( not that they wouldn't have done so for darker reasons also, but this could have been another part of it).
Comments point out some of the reality: SFU is not a Unix or Linux kernel, it's just a bunch of tacked on glue to give you something sorta kinda Unixy. However, I would argue that is enough for some folks. While the Linux crowd has religious fervor, there's a good pile of folks who just like the Unix environment and don't care about the kernel, or even open source. Those people might like a strong SFU a lot.
I have strong political opinions about the value of open source and the dangers of large monopolistic companies like Microsoft, but I'm halfway in that camp of "just give me a decent shell". I use a Mac for my main desktop, and am very happy to do so. And Mac is an excellent choice for less techy folks too: As Christopher Browne said at a news group post
I'm getting _way_ increasingly convinced that MacOS is the solution to suggest to computer novices. They'll have _enough_ of the apps they need, run them atop a reasonably stable form of Unix, and be able to avoid the massive Windows(tm) troubles.
Microsoft could avoid some of its problems with a strong Unix component. A real shell could make some maintenance much easier and of course they are hoping that Longhorn rids them of the general security/design problems that have plagued them since day one.
As most of us have to deal with some Microsoft whether we like it or not, adding a strong SFU would make us happier too - or at least we wouldn't groan quite as much when one of their boxes needs attention.
Got something to add? Send me email.
Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic