OSDev.org

As quoted for Wikipedia, the Microsoft Windows Services for Unix include;

* Over 350 Unix utilities such as vi, ksh, csh, ls, cat, awk, grep, kill, etc.
* GCC 3.3 compiler, includes and libraries (though a MS libc)
* A cc-like wrapper for Microsoft Visual Studio command-line C/C++ compiler
* GDB debugger
* NFS server and client
* A pcnfsd daemon
* X11 tools and libraries
* Tools for making NFS mountpoints appear as Windows shares, and vice-versa (gateway services)
* An NIS server capability linked with Active Directory (AD)
* Some Windows/Unix authentication information synchronization tools

Services for UNIX is not what you think.. It requires redistributing dll's and includes services required for operation.

It's more of a cygwin like implementation...

People should stop trying to emulate UNIX/POSIX in windows, and learn to use a good UNIX-like system..

BSD is a good candidate

I have to use Windows for work. Cygwin makes things bearable.

And, there is a snowflake's chance in hell of that changing in the near future.

So, you're saying that I should have to suffer because of somebody else's OS choice.

Do you have to share your computer at work? If an alternative operating system would increase your productivity and is available at no extra cost, why would they not let you install it?

Just curious,

Andrew

Brynet-Inc wrote:Services for UNIX is not what you think.. It requires redistributing dll's and includes services required for operation.

It's more of a cygwin like implementation...

I was expecting a cygwin like implementation. I installed it through Programs & Features (Vista's Add/Remove Programs option), then it took me to Microsoft's website to download a file around 150MB which included a heap of GNU tools. Now I have a link to csh and ksh in my start menu, and gcc, ash, ld, and make work fine.

I'm still going to use my DJGPP installation, because it's running GCC 4.0 now SFU's 3.5, among with other updated tools.

spix wrote:Do you have to share your computer at work? If an alternative operating system would increase your productivity and is available at no extra cost, why would they not let you install it?

Just curious,

Andrew

I'd suggest one reason might be if their I.T. department isn't savvy with anything other than Windows then they might have problems with their own inability to lock it down properly.

You can't install Linux in most work environments since the system administration doesn't know anything about linux maintenance and possible holes. For windows they know about possible holes, everybody knows it and so forth. That's why in most cases you can't connect your Linux machine to the common network, verily reducing your productivity as measured on that network. So, by the same logic, using Linux would reduce your productivity to nil which causes most people actually working for money to live from to not do such.

So, by the same logic, using Linux would reduce your productivity to nil which causes most people actually working for money to live from to not do such.

Yeah, hence why I said "If an alternative operating system ]would increase your productivity" Sure, people who work for money tend to like to get work done (unless the work for the government of course

I was just curious. If this person installed cygwin to "make things bearable" then I had this notion that maybe he was part of the IT department.

There are many cases in which linux (or whatever) is used in a work environment to increase productivity, and even some cases where there is (gasp) windows and mac os x computers, all in the one company.

Midas wrote:

spix wrote:Do you have to share your computer at work? If an alternative operating system would increase your productivity and is available at no extra cost, why would they not let you install it?

Just curious,

Andrew

I'd suggest one reason might be if their I.T. department isn't savvy with anything other than Windows then they might have problems with their own inability to lock it down properly.

If you have a laptop, you could connect it to the network, and use that.

B.E wrote:

Midas wrote:

spix wrote:Do you have to share your computer at work? If an alternative operating system would increase your productivity and is available at no extra cost, why would they not let you install it?

Just curious,

Andrew

I'd suggest one reason might be if their I.T. department isn't savvy with anything other than Windows then they might have problems with their own inability to lock it down properly.

If you have a laptop, you could connect it to the network, and use that.

But it could be locked down, Windows or otherwise, so that it couldn't connect at all and is therefore not a threat (except USB flash drives, MP3 players used like the previous, CD burners etc - although these can be controlled on work-owned machines).

The problem isn't blocking access completely but filtering it, without appropriate knowledge of the system (I use Linux for development and the occasional spur-of-the-moment thing, I'd maybe use it more if ATI would release some decent drivers - I sure couldn't even hope to tighten the security as well as I could on a full-Windows network) so that it can be used productively but not otherwise (i.e. not quite so easy to sniff people's passwords).

Midas wrote:But it could be locked down, Windows or otherwise, so that it couldn't connect at all and is therefore not a threat (except USB flash drives, MP3 players used like the previous, CD burners etc - although these can be controlled on work-owned machines).

The problem isn't blocking access completely but filtering it, without appropriate knowledge of the system (I use Linux for development and the occasional spur-of-the-moment thing, I'd maybe use it more if ATI would release some decent drivers - I sure couldn't even hope to tighten the security as well as I could on a full-Windows network) so that it can be used productively but not otherwise (i.e. not quite so easy to sniff people's passwords).

If I understand you correctly, It sounds like your saying networking technologies are vastly different between Windows/Unix-like systems.

Unix supports TCP/IP.
Windows supports TCP/IP.
Unix systems can access Windows Shares using Samba.

If someone connects a laptop running linux for example, It should be able to fully utilize the network (Get an IP via DHCP.. use the router, DNS, proxy.. etc..)

And if the person is more productive using UNIX-like systems thats a good thing, It's possible that company themselves are using Linux or Unix in some way or another.. A company only using Windows would scare the s**t out of me..

Brynet-Inc wrote:If I understand you correctly, It sounds like your saying networking technologies are vastly different between Windows/Unix-like systems.

Unix supports TCP/IP.
Windows supports TCP/IP.
Unix systems can access Windows Shares using Samba.

If someone connects a laptop running linux for example, It should be able to fully utilize the network (Get an IP via DHCP.. use the router, DNS, proxy.. etc..)

I'm saying that connecting a Linux machine to most corporate networks makes you breach the contract you signed to get the job in the first place, if only by a fairly small amount (assuming you don't have any evil intentions with it). That means you don't get paid and you don't get to eat food at the end of the day. Simple sum for most.

And if the person is more productive using UNIX-like systems thats a good thing, It's possible that company themselves are using Linux or Unix in some way or another.. A company only using Windows would scare the s**t out of me..

Be scared already.

Candy wrote:I'm saying that connecting a Linux machine to most corporate networks makes you breach the contract you signed to get the job in the first place, if only by a fairly small amount (assuming you don't have any evil intentions with it).

Depending on the contract, it could be a fairly big amount. When insurances or "security regulations" come into play, it doesn't matter how safe your alternative is, it suffices that it is not certified. The person telling you that your contract has been terminated won't know the difference anyway as he'd be from HR, not IT.

And I'm not even going into the difficulties of making your Linux system speak properly to a Windows domain controller or an Exchange server, how you expect Mozilla to cope with administrative intranet sites that are designed for MSIE only (as that's the only browser you're allowed to use anyway), or how you intend to work on those MS Project plans, those MS Visio diagrams, those corporate-identity-formatted Word documents, or those Excel sheets including VB scripting, COM plugins and whatnot.

All this is reality at my working place. Actually, this post could get me fired. But luckily, nobody cares (much).

Solar wrote:

Candy wrote:I'm saying that connecting a Linux machine to most corporate networks makes you breach the contract you signed to get the job in the first place, if only by a fairly small amount (assuming you don't have any evil intentions with it).

Depending on the contract, it could be a fairly big amount. When insurances or "security regulations" come into play, it doesn't matter how safe your alternative is, it suffices that it is not certified. The person telling you that your contract has been terminated won't know the difference anyway as he'd be from HR, not IT.

And I'm not even going into the difficulties of making your Linux system speak properly to a Windows domain controller or an Exchange server, how you expect Mozilla to cope with administrative intranet sites that are designed for MSIE only (as that's the only browser you're allowed to use anyway), or how you intend to work on those MS Project plans, those MS Visio diagrams, those corporate-identity-formatted Word documents, or those Excel sheets including VB scripting, COM plugins and whatnot.

All this is reality at my working place. Actually, this post could get me fired. But luckily, nobody cares (much).

It's reality at my place too, that's why I brought it up. I have a linux machine off the side for testing, but I really can't do much with it since it isn't allowed to connect to the main network, including exchange servers, MSIE only pages (that don't even work in msie for crying out loud) etc. The whole shebang.

Brynet-Inc wrote:If I understand you correctly, It sounds like your saying networking technologies are vastly different between Windows/Unix-like systems.

No, you misunderstand. I realise that Unix (using the term far too loosely - to cover 'official' Unixes and Linux etc) can access the resources - of course it uses TCP/IP.

I simply meant that if the admins wanted to restrict installation of software onto machines, to restrict how USB devices could be used, to restrict anything else at a machine level then they might not have the requisite knowledge.

I think, reading my earlier posts, I was a little vague.