-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RE.Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:27:10 -0600 From: Jon Drews jon.drews@gmail.com Reply-To: Jon Drews jon.drews@gmail.com To: estover@olc.edu CC: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org References: 1098590132.32627.20.camel@red
More information here Ed and others. I actually came across the Microsoft site that offered gcc for it's UNIX tools. I couldn't believe it when I saw it:
Microsoft uses open source, despite critical stance http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/06/27/010627hnmsfree.html By Matt Berger June 27, 2001 12:10 pm PT
DESPITE MICROSOFT'S AGGRESSIVE criticism of the open-source movement -- most notably one of its flagship software licences, the GNU General Public License -- the company has quietly been publishing source code under that license for one of its own products for the past two years...
...Microsoft distributes a product called Interix, which is used by customers to port Unix applications to its Windows operating systems. Interix includes a software compiler called the GCC (GNU Compiler Collection), a product first developed by Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman that is covered by the General Public License (GPL).
-------------------------- Here is the actual site: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/overview/default.asp EXCERPT: UNIX on Windows
The Interix subsystem technology provides a universal environment that can run both Windows and UNIX applications on a single system. Through Interix, you can reduce development time while making use of existing employee skill sets.
<snip>
Windows Services for UNIX 3.5 also includes more than 300 UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems, plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900 UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:55:32 -0600, Ed Stover estover@olc.edu wrote:
The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments.
So if FreeBSD and Open Source are unworthy replacements for Windows how come all these tools are being sold by them? _______________________________________________ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Ramanraj K said on Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:06:27AM +0530,:
I actually came across the Microsoft site that offered gcc for it's UNIX tools. I couldn't believe it when I saw it:
They really do not have a choice. *nices require compliance with standards, and gcc's compliance with the standards is the best.
Microsoft uses open source, despite critical stance
(cough, cough) GCC is _Free_ not merely open source.
Ok. I *AM* a free software zealot.
The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments.
So if FreeBSD and Open Source are unworthy replacements for Windows how come all these tools are being sold by them?
Actually, this story is an excellent illustration of why the GNU GPL is better than BSD (the license). If the GCC were under a BSD style free non-copyleft license, customers would have been left holding yet another `extension' in their hands.
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Ramanraj K said on Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:06:27AM +0530,:
I actually came across the Microsoft site that offered gcc for it's UNIX tools. I couldn't believe it when I saw it ...
No, thanks. I cannot take credit, because it is a forwarded message:
,------------ Original Message -------- | Subject: Re: RE.Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows | Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:27:10 -0600 | From: Jon Drews jon.drews@gmail.com | Reply-To: Jon Drews jon.drews@gmail.com | To: estover@olc.edu | CC:freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org | References:1098590132.32627.20.camel@red `----
Actually, this story is an excellent illustration of why the GNU GPL
> is better than BSD (the license). If the GCC were under a BSD style > free non-copyleft license, customers would have been left holding yet > another `extension' in their hands.
I am sure FreeBSD Developers may embrace the GPL whole heartedly, or we may get to see copyleft clauses in the FreeBSD license.
Since the FUD Agents do not operate alone, but with support from one or two other user group members, it is better to call them the Sick FUD Units [SFU's*] and their simple mission appears to be to confuse, rant and spam promoting their principal.
SFUs irk and irritate because, they abuse free software to promote non-free software. The SFUs very conveniently use free software to promote themselves, but ask others to go away and try something else. SFU spam [shit posted as mail] is a dead give away and the vigilance of the majority is the only check against FUD operations.
Abraham Lincon said "Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of equal rights of men ... ours began, by affirming those rights ... We made the experiment; and the fruit is before us. Look at it - think of it."
Non-free software essentially denies equal rights of men to know and use software. Free software gives this right and freedom. There are no keyboard shortcuts to understanding this truth, and one has to think, the way Lincon eloquently spoke during a troubled time in the past. HTH.
*SFUs mentioned here sound functionally and confusingly similar to Windows Services For Unix, SFU, also from Microsoft. Both are sub systems for interoperability, but one targets machines and the other targets people :)