Vlad Markov's profile photoSam Albuquerque's profile photoMaiko Gabriel Kinzel Engelke's profile photoNoel Yap's profile photo
Twas ever thus. Hotmail was based on FreeBSD and Solaris, and it took Microsoft three tries to convert it to run on Windows, and they only managed that by using a UNIX emulation layer.

Their justification for the conversion was that the overhead of CGI was too great, and "of course" there was no way to switch from CGI to threads except by running it on Windows.
You know, this problem is somehow specific to Hotmail. It's about once a year that someone I know well has their Hotmail somehow hacked and an e-mail set out in the very same fashion as described. It does not happen to their Yahoo, Gmail, etc .. only Hotmail. I highly doubt everyone purposefully selects weak passwords only for Hotmail.
And before Interix there was Xenix, which led to SCO UNIX, and Microsoft using SCO as a puppet to attack Linux.
When Microsoft was doing it Xenix was actually one of the best and most stable UNIX ports available.
Though it did suffer from the weirdness of shipping with csh and no sh. Which is how I came to be a csh user for years.
What version of Xenix was that? I've run into plenty of versions that didn't have csh, but it would be a huge amount of work to rewrite all the scripts to ship without sh.

Are you talking about the very first versions, which were based on Version 6, which was pre-bourne-shell, when csh was the only version of the shell that supported things like functions and aliases (well, if you don't count psh, which only existed on the Evans Hall machines at Berkeley).
Version 6 shell, you couldn't even pipe into scripts, because scripts were implemented as "sh < file". Unbuffered, so you could implement "if" and the rest by having them seek() stdin.
Sounds like MS has touch of death. I am nervously awaiting, when Skype will become complete shit, and I will have to move elsewhere.
It already has on non-Windows platforms, I'm told. I don't use Skype because it's a secret proprietary protocol and a closed walled-off network. I believe strongly in interoperability and open standards.
+mathew murphy I agree about silk, but for my understanding they opened silk for everyone some time ago - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vos-silk-01
they use silk for interconnection between users, because they do TCP and firewall penetration, also relays through other users, but between skype client/PSTN they use transcoders to connect to PSTN with proper codecs, like G.729 and G.711
also, for interconnection to operators and business users, they use SIP: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/skype-connect/
So in conclusion, they very much using open standard.
I notice that that particular draft was only submitted in mid-2010. Where's the documentation for their client to client protocol and codec selection? Why do they keep issuing DMCA takedowns for people who reverse engineer the same? http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAwNzI

They only use SIP for business connections because they have to, because businesses were too smart to get locked into a single vendor proprietary solution.
They can't do much regarding reverse engineering, if people did not subscribed to http://developer.skype.com/
But I don't see valuable reason, to use silk even with reverse engineered version, royalty free, or any Skype API for this matter, simply because it's tide up to single vendor.
I am actually very happy with #OBiTalk
Add a comment...