3 ms·

The original POSIX subsystem was just there so MS could say that it exists (and pass DoD requirements). It got actually somewhat usable with the 2k/XP version,

by dfox 1y ago

The original POSIX subsystem was just there so MS could say that it exists (and pass DoD requirements). It got actually somewhat usable with the 2k/XP version, slightly better in Vista (notably: the utilities installer had option to use bash a default shell) and IIRC with 7 MS even again mentioned existence of the thing in marketing (with some cool new name for the thing).

pjmlp 1y ago
Indeed, and that is why if I wanted to do university work at home instead of fighting for a place at one DG/UX terminal at the campus, I had to find something else. I am aware it got much better later on, but given the way it was introduced, the mess with third party integrations, as Microsoft always outsourced the development effort (MKS, Interix,..), it never got people to care about afterwards. First impressions matter most.
- mmx1 1y ago
  Realistically anyone who cared would be using something like Cygwin (and the original UNIX server market segment evaporated due to Linux and had zero interest in migrating to NT in that form--some did migrate due to application layer benefits like .NET but not for the same workloads.)
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    There is an alternative universe where Windows NT POSIX is really as it should have been in first place, and Linux never takes off as there is no need for it. As there is another alternative one where Microsoft doesn't sell Xenix and keeps pushing for it, as Bill Gates was actually a big fan of.
    - mmx1 1y ago
      Obviously we'll never know, but I seriously doubt that parallel universe would've had a chance to materialize. Not the least due to "free as in beer" aspect of Linux whilst web/Apache was growing at the pace it did. All proprietary unices are basically dead. Sun was likely the sole company that had the best attitude to live alongside open source, but they also proved it wasn't a good enough business post bubble burst. NT and Darwin remain alive due to their desktop use, not server.
      - p_ing 1y ago
        NT underlies the majority of M365 and many of the major Azure services. Most F500s in the US will have at the very least an Active Directory deployment, if not other ancillary services. IIS and SQL Server (Win) boxes are fairly typical, still.
        mmx1 1y ago
        I am not suggesting NT is dead on servers at all. I am positing it would be dead had it not been for owning the majority of desktops. Those use cases are primarily driven as an ancillary service to Windows desktop[1], and where they have wider applicability, like .NET and SQL Server, have been progressively unleashed from Windows. The realm of standalone server products were bulldozed by Linux; NT wouldn't have stood a chance either. [1]: In fact, Active Directory was specifically targeted by EU antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
        throwaway2037 1y ago
        For all large corps, users sit at 1990s-style desktop computers that run Win10/11 and use Microsoft Office, including Outlook that connects to an Exchange server running on Windows Server. I'm not here to defend Microsoft operating systems (I much prefer Linux), but they are so deeply embedded. It might be decades before that changes at large corps.
        kjellsbells 1y ago
        That was true once, but not true now. On-prem Exchange is rapidly being squashed by Microsoft in favor of 365. The direction of travel for the Outlook client is clearly towards web (I note anecdotally that the Mac client, always a poor relation to Windows, is so laughably clunky that the Mac users I know forgo it in favor of the web client.) If the service is in the 365 cloud and the client is a web browser, who needs Windows for this discussion? We might end up in a future of terminals again for the worker bees and 'real' computers only for the people who need Excel and Word and for whom the web versions dont cut it
      - skissane 1y ago

by dfox 1y ago

pjmlp 1y ago

Indeed, and that is why if I wanted to do university work at home instead of fighting for a place at one DG/UX terminal at the campus, I had to find something else. I am aware it got much better later on, but given the way it was introduced, the mess with third party integrations, as Microsoft always outsourced the development effort (MKS, Interix,..), it never got people to care about afterwards. First impressions matter most.

mmx1 1y ago
Realistically anyone who cared would be using something like Cygwin (and the original UNIX server market segment evaporated due to Linux and had zero interest in migrating to NT in that form--some did migrate due to application layer benefits like .NET but not for the same workloads.)
- pjmlp 1y ago
  There is an alternative universe where Windows NT POSIX is really as it should have been in first place, and Linux never takes off as there is no need for it. As there is another alternative one where Microsoft doesn't sell Xenix and keeps pushing for it, as Bill Gates was actually a big fan of.
  - mmx1 1y ago
    Obviously we'll never know, but I seriously doubt that parallel universe would've had a chance to materialize. Not the least due to "free as in beer" aspect of Linux whilst web/Apache was growing at the pace it did. All proprietary unices are basically dead. Sun was likely the sole company that had the best attitude to live alongside open source, but they also proved it wasn't a good enough business post bubble burst. NT and Darwin remain alive due to their desktop use, not server.
    - p_ing 1y ago
      NT underlies the majority of M365 and many of the major Azure services. Most F500s in the US will have at the very least an Active Directory deployment, if not other ancillary services. IIS and SQL Server (Win) boxes are fairly typical, still.
      - mmx1 1y ago
        I am not suggesting NT is dead on servers at all. I am positing it would be dead had it not been for owning the majority of desktops. Those use cases are primarily driven as an ancillary service to Windows desktop[1], and where they have wider applicability, like .NET and SQL Server, have been progressively unleashed from Windows. The realm of standalone server products were bulldozed by Linux; NT wouldn't have stood a chance either. [1]: In fact, Active Directory was specifically targeted by EU antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
      - throwaway2037 1y ago
        For all large corps, users sit at 1990s-style desktop computers that run Win10/11 and use Microsoft Office, including Outlook that connects to an Exchange server running on Windows Server. I'm not here to defend Microsoft operating systems (I much prefer Linux), but they are so deeply embedded. It might be decades before that changes at large corps.
        kjellsbells 1y ago
        That was true once, but not true now. On-prem Exchange is rapidly being squashed by Microsoft in favor of 365. The direction of travel for the Outlook client is clearly towards web (I note anecdotally that the Mac client, always a poor relation to Windows, is so laughably clunky that the Mac users I know forgo it in favor of the web client.) If the service is in the 365 cloud and the client is a web browser, who needs Windows for this discussion? We might end up in a future of terminals again for the worker bees and 'real' computers only for the people who need Excel and Word and for whom the web versions dont cut it
    - skissane 1y ago