Linux shell programming

MS-Linux? It Could Happen

Could Microsoft come out with its own Linux distribution? It sure could. There's nothing in the GPL to stop it. And in fact, SCO CEO Darl McBride told me at November's CDXPO in Las Vegas that Microsoft's second licensing payment to his company was for the rights to incorporate Services for Unix (SFU) into its operating systems.

SFU, for those who don't know it, gives users access to a Unix shell environment that runs on top of the Windows kernel. It also includes a software development kit that includes many Unix application programming interfaces and such basic Unix development tools as make, rcs and gcc.

Historically, Microsoft has used SFU to make it easy for corporate customers to migrate from Unix to Windows. In practical terms, I've found it to be an extremely useful way to manage cross-Windows and Unix network services. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If I'm running a shop with both Windows and Unix (whether it's AIX, Solaris, Linux or what have you) I want SFU. It's one of Microsoft's best software offerings, and the upcoming version, 3.5, looks darn good, too.

It also looks good to me as a possible way to host Linux on top of Server 2003. Sound impossible? It's not. Before SCO decided it wasn't a Linux company, it offered Linux Kernel Personalities (LKP), which boiled down to Linux virtual machines that ran on top of UnixWare, so we already know you can run Linux on top of another operating system.

Microsoft already has SFU. For what it's worth, Microsoft has SCO's permission to put SFU's Unix functionality into Windows Server so it's unlikely that SCO could complain about Microsoft using Linux. Mind you, I don't think for a second that SCO would yell at anything Microsoft would do, but Microsoft taking the SFU option finesses SCO's legal claims against Linux.

Now, would Microsoft do this? I think it just might.

I can't see Microsoft coming out with its own independent Linux distribution. Despite the Department of Justice ruling, Microsoft has continued to make its programs and operating systems interdependent. For example, if you really want to get any significant advantage from using Office 2003, you need to buy into Office System 2003, which in turn means buying Server 2003 and SharePoint Portal Server. Microsoft couldn't do that with an MS-Linux.

But Linux as a "service" on Windows Server? That, I can see.

Now, the only way I see this happening is if Linux starts eating Microsoft's server market share the way Linux has the older Unixes' market share. In that case, Microsoft will want to make a dramatic move to try to knock out its Linux rivals. I think it's to set up the foundation for such a move (and to help SCO to continue to trouble Linux) that Microsoft obtained the right to place SFU's functionality within a server operating system.

Mind you, running Linux as a service wouldn't add a darn thing to Microsoft's offerings. Indeed, it would hurt them in some ways since it would distract them from their main plans. Linux certainly wouldn't gain anything from running on say Server 2003. But, if Microsoft were to make such a move, it wouldn't be about technical benefits. It would be about stealing Linux's thunder. It would be about saying to customers: "Linux? We can give you that, only better because you don't have to worry about SCO legal action."

Check out eWEEK.com's Linux & Open Source Center. <p

You see, Microsoft has never been about being technically better. Microsoft is about creating the perception that it's the best and embracing any technology that might disrupt that illusion. If Linux gives Microsoft enough trouble, I think Microsoft is ready to embrace Linux just enough to try to strangle it.

Discuss This in the eWEEK Forum

eWEEK.com Linux & Open Source Center Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been using and writing about Unix and Linux since the late '80s and thinks he may just have learned something about them along the way.