OSNews

Once they start following MS's actual specs, I expect the quality of their implementation to drop.

That's funny.

And ilogical, but let's just take it in the spirit it was probably intended.

That's not true. Microsoft developers are plenty smart. It's just that the proprietary software development model tends to trade productivity, agility, performance, complexity, and cost in exchange for the assurances of centralized management.

The free software ecosystem is what happens to software development when you (largely) eliminate the managers and let the developers manage themselves. There are disadvantages to this model, but free software licensing provides a mechanism for mitigating ineffective project management to a certain extent.

You write good.

LOL!!!

Once they start following MS's actual specs, I expect the quality of their implementation to drop.

[sarcasm] huh, I guess you're right. They are so much better with guessing them as they do now. [/sarcasm]

Note for you from our planet. Samba IS implementation of MS protocols, so... why would be using documentation instead of guessing be a bad thing?

it's called sarcasm, you're American right?

At least the AD protocols are included, according to Andrew Tridgell no less.

The OpenChange folks are working on MAPI, both client and server side.
http://www.openchange.org/

As far as I understand they are already building upon work of the Samba team

There's also the OMC BRUTUS implementation: http://www.42tools.com/

BRUTUS and has both client and server MAPI implementations. It at least allows Evolution to talk to Exchange. The big downside is that BRUTUS is a CORBA project: OpenChange is a little more sane in that respect.

In all fairness and as someone who's had to delve into the IMAP RFCs I don't blame the Outlook team too much. IMAP is a horrible, horrible hack.

Not that MAPI in its current incarnations is a walk in the park either - you'd be amazed at the cruft that seeps through the design - but it seems to have been actually designed instead of organically extended.

Unfortunately, until someone who actually understands the core concepts of distributed messaging comes along and creates a proper protocol design document (my wish for xmas 2010 ), we're stuck with IMAP if we don't want our data to get locked into Microsoft technology.

BIG news! This could also be a killer blow to MS' home server product, where a linux NAS device could in theory be able to *fully* provide the functionality (including all the non-storage-specific fancy bits) for 1/3rd the cost.

Umm no. MS home server product is more than just a file-server. Samba is about serving files. So, conclusion: this has nothing to do with "non-storage-specific fancy bits".

You obviously don't have much experience with samba if you think it's only function is serving files. Domain controller/participant, print sharing, etc. It does a heckofalot for a reverse engineered piece of software.

The fancy bits being a home domain controller, with all the nice backup and remote access tools

(PS - I'm an 150k+ user AD design guy as a day job)

Interesting comment over at Neowin, reproduced below:

According to this report [1] (which references a Groklaw analysis), the Samba team apparently paid the 10,000 Euro fee to license the documentation. The documentation cannot be redistributed, but this allows the Samba team to see the specifics of SMB, and to code to match it. Importantly, it also seems to detail the patents that apply, so the Samba team can likewise write code that does not infringe on Microsoft's patents.

And, if you recall, Ballmer has been pretty noisy over the past 3 months or so about Linux infringing on patents.

Seems like Microsoft is being forced to provide information on these patents (if only by paying for protocol documentation), which will lessen the unspecific FUD that Microsoft is able to spread by claiming general patent liabilities in Linux.


[1] - http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/12/the_first...

Wait! you mean they *paid* for that ?
Insane.

"This could also be a killer blow to MS' home server product ..."

LOL
I can just picture the glee on your face as you typed that. "Killing" Microsoft's products is really what this is all about, isn't it? Not "interoperability" or "fairness" or whatever other utopian notions someone spouts, it's about killing Microsoft products (for you and your ilk, at least).

I don't think this will kill Windows Home Server, but if it did, then I'd have to ask what incentive Microsoft would have to come up with a new product if government action can cause it to be "killed". Windows Home Server is getting rave reviews, and Microsoft did good work on the product. But if this sort of thing "kills" it, why should they bother making such efforts in the future? And how would such an outcome benefit consumers? Would consumers really be better off if Windows Home Server had never been developed because Microsoft felt that it was a waste of time because government action would kill it anyway?

Oh well, at least a talking point regarding Samba being impeded has been removed. When Microsoft continues to have high server share (according to the EC), the EC will have to find another excuse for why that is happening (which they won't disclose as they levy more fines.* lol).



* The EC chief stated that her goal is to significantly reduce Microsoft's market share, and suggested that if they had a market share greater than 50% or so, then that in itself is evidence of an unfair marketplace and/or Microsoft's violating EU law, and would necessitate further EC action (like more fines for whatever ostensible reason they can come up with).

Edited 2007-12-22 04:15

Whats wrong with that statement - it is unnatural to maintain such a high market share in a market which has low start up costs, low physical barriers to entry. The only way you can maintain the type of monopoly Microsoft has is either gained through being a natural monopoly such as a power generator or lines company, or they're doing something illegal.

The issue out of that is this; yes, there are companies which have market shares greater than 50% but it moves up, it moves down, it moves left, it moves right - the point is, it never stays static.

The issue which the EC is making is simply this; the fact is Microsoft is creating barriers to entry as they grow, as they gain more market share they create new protocols, new formats deliberately to shut the gate behind them and stop anyone from threatening that market share gained. Call it a mobile fortress.

The EC has NOTHING against Microsoft creating a better product, competing with vendors, and increasing their product line up - when they then use protocols and formats to stop interoperability forcing a whole companies to go all Microsoft or nothing - or worse, if they stay heterogeneous, it creates compatibility issues - Microsoft gains more due to the problems they create.

Compare that to the UNIX world; have you ever heard of system administrators on a mixed UNIX environment complain about not being able to hook their UNIX machines together because of proprietary protocols and formats?

Edited 2007-12-22 05:18

"The issue which the EC is making is simply this; the fact is Microsoft is creating barriers to entry as they grow, as they gain more market share they create new protocols, new formats deliberately to shut the gate behind them and stop anyone from threatening that market share gained. Call it a mobile fortress."

So, the EC is purposely stifling innovation and advancement? If a company gives consumers what they want they need to be dealt with? If 3rd party vendors decide to support 1 platform and not another, it is the fault of the company that made the product the vendors support?

I appreciate your posts kaiwai, though I do not agree with this part of it. Microsoft was in the right place at the right time, and got the majority of the market that way. Am I saying they did not do anything backhanded?? Certainly not, but I will say they did nothing more than Sun, IBM, HP, etc..

The EC is all about Microsoft NOT creating anything at this point. Once 3rd parties decide to support other OS, a whole bunch of people will leave MS behind. Anyone with intelligence can see that. Now if the EC would go after the *other* companies and ensure they made products that could not only work with windows, but also on other OS, I would be all for it. The fact is the EC wants nothing more than to get free money from MS in the way of fines, and could give a rats ass on interoperability or anything else. If they really cared, than go after Adobe and the like so consumers and businesses have what they want and are asking for. Which, btw, is for their programs to be supported. Us tech people forget that, the non-tech people do not.

You are now claiming, here on this forum that using open standards and being involved with developing those open standards is equal to that of stifling innovation? Thats pretty far fetched. Now sure, I admit, working in a group can take longer than working unilaterally when developing a protocol or format, but at the same time working in a group also addresses technical short comings and security issues a lot better - different people from different backgrounds with different expertise.



If you read what I said, they offered something, but they gained market share and maintained it through the creation of proprietary protocols and file formats to ensure that once a company has been locked into the Microsoft ecosystem - they were stuck; to move away from Microsoft would be so prohibitively expensive that it would be unworkable for the customer to leave. In other words it locked their market share gains in for the long term by ensuring that they would never lose customers and always gain a greater market share.

Couple that with the need to interoperate with customers and other vendors, if someone moves to a Microsoft solution within the 'ecosystem' of their industry, all those that rely on that business for their business are forced to move to Microsoft - its a domino effect.



Microsoft was with the working group who developed the ODF format, which includes spreadsheet, text, presentation - Microsoft worked on the committee that developed and ultimately ratified it. I find it hypocritical of the extreme when Microsoft works on the committee that developers it, then votes on the ratification of the standard THEN turns around, bad mouths that very standard which they voted on, and proceeds not to address the issues but instead develop their own 'standard' to compete with ODF.

They were there every step of the way - why didn't they attempt to address the short comings of ODF? why didn't they submit their partially completed OOXML to the OASIS working group to get it merged into the ODF which would allow a 'single format to rule them all'? why have they kept XPS to themselves than submitting it to the OASIS working group and establish it as a superior XML based replacement to PDF?

To me, Microsoft's actions, in the above example is like the person who sits at the side of the party complaining that 'no one likes them' and yet when someone comes over and try's to get them involved with the party, all they can do is bad mouth everyone in the room.

It is pathetic and childish on Microsoft's part to claim that they're and industry player and yet, all their actions so far have been anything but mature; they've refused to work with vendors, they bad mouth using ad-homen attacks on the GPL licence labelling it communist and cancerous without going into great detail. They make claims against competitors and yet, when asked to prove their claims - they go silent.

Edited 2007-12-22 12:43

To produce software at the scale and quality of Microsoft there are huge startup costs. A very large number of man-years went into creating Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Exchange, SQL Server, and many of the other products that do well for Microsoft. Probably an equal number of man-years went into failed projects that have been forgotten in the collective memory and into other wasted efforts.

But MS is persistent and the management doesn't seem to waste a ton of money on fancy buildings or insane executive compensation. And they never seem to permanently give up on anything.

Well, MS is most persistent when it comes to leveraging their monopoly in the desktop operating system market to shut competitors out of the browser market, the media player market, and partially the server market.

MS does this by creating or extending data exchange formats.

And this leveraging is simply illegal. As illegal as putting your "Queen"-Albums for download on the internet. As illegal as hoodwinking someone into buying a house you don't own.

Monopolies have to be treated different from all other companies, especially in markets with large network effects. Otherwise there will be no market, there will be a planned economy, with the difference that a company will hold the plan and not the communists.

In a democracy you can choose for whom you vote, in communism you can choose if you want to go to the votes in the morning or in the afternoon. In microsoftism you have no choice, all your data is locked into microsofts secret proprietary formats and protocols (at least that is what microsoft wants).

I am very happy that the EC regulators reestablished one market to functionality. Many more markets still have to wait for that.

"Whats wrong with that statement - it is unnatural to maintain such a high market share in a market which has low start up costs, low physical barriers to entry. The only way you can maintain the type of monopoly Microsoft has is either gained through being a natural monopoly such as a power generator or lines company, or they're doing something illegal."

Wow, talk about turning jurisprudence on its head. See something you don't like, and assume it's due to some illegality, look for the illegality, and even if you don't find it, create an illegality on the fly (which the EU courts have sadly ruled the EC has the power to do in matters regarding commerce), don't tell the accused exactly what the illegality is and/or exactly what law it's based on, and levy the fines. A complete joke straight from the mind of Kafka.

More Kafka-esque is that the EC holds no "trials". They hold *hearings*, but those don't provide due process. The accused has no chance to cross examine evidence or face their accusers, and indeed, the evidence against the accuser doesn't even have to be disclosed. The accused can appeal EC rulings to a real court, but the appellate court still doesn't allow cross examination of the evidence or accusers, it only deals with if the EC followed proper procedure in declaring guilt (and, according to recent EU court ruling, whatever the EC has absolute authority regarding commerce, so whatever they do *is* proper procedure by definition). The whole thing is a sham. Which is why US companies that have a beef with Microsoft always threaten to go to the EC rather than going to a US court, the natural venue for disputes between American companies.

Here's the big problem with your and the EC's legal theory. If the maintaining a high marketshare is in itself evidence of illegality, but you don't really know what the illegality is, how the hell is a company supposed to know what to do to remain in compliance with EC law? Under this legal theory, the only way to ensure compliance is to intentionally gut your own marketshare somehow to make sure you remain below 50%.



"The issue out of that is this; yes, there are companies which have market shares greater than 50% but it moves up, it moves down, it moves left, it moves right - the point is, it never stays static. "

According to the EC, the market in question, servers, isn't "static". According to their stats, Microsoft's server share keeps increasing year after year, and they are pissed off about it.

Edited 2007-12-22 20:08

Extremely high marketshare is evidence of illegality in the sense that it is illegal in and of itself. The EC holds that, in the service of the public interest in competition and choice, they have a mandate to intervene in monopolized markets on the behalf of smaller competitors. They also have a mandate to intervene in the business of any corporation in response to widespread public dissatisfaction.

This may seem odd from an American perspective. But even in this country, corporations technically operate under a charter, a contract with the public that may be revoked at any time should the public decide that the corporation is no longer serving their interests faithfully. The Department of Justice typically refuses to prosecute such cases even where public outrage is enormous (e.g. the credit card industry) and blocks state governments from doing so.

Explicit marketshare caps are hardly a novel concept, even in the content industry (of which the software industry is a part). There is an undeniably public interest in the accessibility and diversity of information sources, which has clear implications for the software platform as a gateway to content.



Corporate personhood is a distinctly American concept rooted in Santa Clara Country v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Individual liberties under the 14th Amendment such as the right to due process weren't intended to apply to juristic persons such as corporations.

As far as I know, there is neither medical evidence of a corporation ever being born nor official records of any corporation successfully completing the naturalization process, and the next word in the 14th Amendment is "and". The SCOTUS ruling to the contrary fundamentally alters the original legal basis of the corporation as a servant of the public.

Legal authorities outside the United States may have slightly more sensible interpretations of the role of the corporation and may occasionally deprive them of liberty or property without due process. I suppose that it's at least exceedingly difficult to deprive a corporation of life, although the Supreme Court may beg to differ...

Whats wrong with that statement - it is unnatural to maintain such a high market share in a market which has low start up costs, low physical barriers to entry. The only way you can maintain the type of monopoly Microsoft has is either gained through being a natural monopoly such as a power generator or lines company, or they're doing something illegal.

What's wrong is that there are LOTS of reasons why monopolies are maintained, and it isn't strictly due to anti-competitive pressures. For example, many companies obtain MULTIPLE products from Microsoft (Exchange, Office, Windows, Visual Studio, etc) -- as well as SUPPORT -- so having one source can actually be less expensive than trying to cobble together a Franken-solution from multiple vendors. I can understand the EC's attempts at leveling the playing field to make it more possible for other companies to compete; however, I think it's wrong to continually hobble Microsoft merely for maintaining a monopoly which is driven by customer demand, not anti-competitive measures.

Nobody has an issue with microsoft having a monopoly. The issue is, that there CANNOT be competition as long as MS keeps the AD protocols secret.

The opening of the protocol does not hinder MS in selling their software and their support contracts as they always did. And nobody hobbles MS. There is no order or law which forbids MS to sell their stuff or create the next hypercool product.
Of course, using their market share dominance on the desktop operating system market to wipe out the competitors in an other market (browsers for example) is illegal. And can be reversed, of course.

So interoperability and open standards is utopian nonsense? Wow. Glad there are others who don't share your viewpoint. I mean, it's one thing to argue about the virtues of Windows Home Server, it's another thing to call interoperability a utopian notion. Can you imagine this world without open protocols like TCP/IP?

**whooooshh**

That's the sound of sarcasm flying overhead.

Yeah, you're obviously a master sarcaster whose talent is wasted on osnews.com. Oh, wait.

Edited 2007-12-23 17:38

No way, once people see that they do not need Windows as the OS, what makes you think they will stay with it ?

Microsoft's ONLY purpose is to make money for the shareholders, it does not matter if the product is perfect or that it sucks, just that money is generated for the shareholders.

Being inter operable with other operating systems is irrelevant to shareholders, who do not want to see even one person switch to an alternate os. It means one less person to sell future stuff to.

The EU is correct going after Microsoft, as there are numerous european governments that are moving away from Microsoft, and switching to alternatives. The comeback from Microsoft is that these countries and their people will be incompatible with the rest of the world, who uses Microsoft product. The EU will ensure this does not happen.

So, when The Application, Protocols and Formats are all opened up and are transparent, what is the point of Windows at all ?

BTW - I use Linux, but have Microsoft shares......

Maybe the EC will learn from their mistakes.

Currently there is a complaint by Opera for procession at the EC. The Opera guys want the EC to decide that Windows MUST NOT be shipped with IE, that the OEMs have to install a browser themselves.

We will see if the EC actually agrees with that.

No way, once people see that they do not need Windows as the OS, what makes you think they will stay with it ?

Existing Windows software, licenses already owned by them, computers shipping with Windows, contracts made...Want me to go on? And strange as it sounds, yes, some people actually like to use Windows.

Being inter operable with other operating systems is irrelevant to shareholders, who do not want to see even one person switch to an alternate os. It means one less person to sell future stuff to.

What about a case where some of the networked computers were something other than Windows clients and they couldn't properly communicate with each other? Those Windows machines would be ditched quite quickly for alternatives..As such, if Windows made it easy to communicate with other platforms too then those Windows machines might not be replaced. That means more customers/money for Microsoft. So, to say it bluntly: they would most likely just gain more users if they tried to really improve interoperability.

So, when The Application, Protocols and Formats are all opened up and are transparent, what is the point of Windows at all ?

What is the point of Linux? The apps, protocols and formats are all opened up and are transparent, and already implemented in numerous other alternative OSes, what is the point of Linux at all? Think about it, whatever reasons you come up with are most likely applicable to Windows too..

Even if all formats & protocols were opened up, there would still be at least one "point" to using Linux that could never apply to Windows too.

Using Linux means escape from the control & influence of, and escape from your dependence on, a large American corporation.

Using Linux means escape from the control & influence of, and escape from your dependence on, a large American corporation.

True, yet regular home-users don't really care about such: Windows just has a lot more useable software, it's familiar to almost everyone and you can always find someone who can help you. On the corporate end the need to use Windows usually comes from the software they use; there are lots of important applications which just haven't been ported to any other platform. As the interoperability between Windows and other OSes improves Microsoft does lose their control over users somewhat but it also means Windows too becomes a viable OS to use in multiplatform environments.

We are imagining a world where all the formats and protocols are open, are we not?

In such a world, Wine would work.



Regular home users, in such a world where Wine works, would be able to run all their programs under Linux, and Linux would be free of cost and the regular home users would be free-er of DRM restrictions on them.

yet regular home-users don't really care about such: Windows just has a lot more useable software,

Linux distro's nowadays come with boatloads of software. I myself am doing lots of stuff with my computer (on Debian-Linux), and I think that the average Linux distro can serve 100% of the needs of 90% of the home desktop users. So there is no reason why Linux should not get to 90% market share.

it's familiar to almost everyone and you can always find someone who can help you.

Well, put anyone in front of a usual Linux desktop, and you will see that he can handle that. I once had guests from Texas (music students) who never saw anything other than MS Windows. I made them a guest account and told them the password. Within minutes they were surfing the web and typing some stuff on OpenOffice, and they definitely were no techs. The difference between Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 is huge compared to the difference between Windows XP and KDE on Linux. That's for the users. The home system maintainer usually is someone who is interested enough to learn about the interna of his tools. He had to learn Windows administration, now he has to learn Linux administration. Help is available for Linux as well as for Windows. Remember, with Linux you are not dependent on the neighbor who has a cracked version of MS Money to get an accounting application onto your system. The only thing you need to get going is internet access, then you can help yourself.

On the corporate end the need to use Windows usually comes from the software they use; there are lots of important applications which just haven't been ported to any other platform. As the interoperability between Windows and other OSes improves Microsoft does lose their control over users somewhat but it also means Windows too becomes a viable OS to use in multiplatform environments.

My company switched me to Windows because of this lock-in. We have been using IRIX, HPUX and Linux on the desktop workstations and did our MS Office stuff on an MS terminal server. That obviously was an expensive solution, so they totally switched us over to Windows. Now I have to reboot my machine 3 times a week and cannot utilize it for crankshaft dynamics calculation (one calculation job takes one day up to one week) anymore. So the 4 processor cores are sitting idle. We would get all apps we need for Linux with 3 exceptions (MSOffice, KisSoft, FlowMaster).

The lock-in tactics of MS work, I agree with you on that and us little guys have to live with an unstable operating system which throws a hissy fit every time it senses interoperability and cross platform stuff coming near it.

The funny thing is, I never thought Windows XP was unstable until I had to really work with it. I always thought, people were overly critical about the stability of XP, but I must say the reality is much harsher than I believed.

My experience with stability of operating systems:
- reboot IRIX every 3 to 6 months
- reboot HPUX every 2 to 4 weeks
- reboot Linux every 4 weeks to 3 months
- reboot Win XP SP2 every 2nd day

Therefore interoperability will cost Windows more than it wil bring them marketshare wise.

"This allows Samba devs to verify their understanding of the protocol and make sure it correctly communicates with Windows clients. Sure, Samba has worked quite well this far too but this is just to make absolutely sure they haven't missed anything."

As you know, nearly everything has the potential to improve; same thing for Samba.

"In the future I hope Microsoft understands the need for interoperability since they no longer can drive all the alternatives OSes out of the market."

As someone else mentioned before, MICROS~1 is interested in working operability just in the way it can lead them to more oh joy oh market share, and so to more money for the shareholders.

Creating methods and means for interoperability has alway been a job for free software developers who nearly "guess, trial and error" engineered software products that were able to communicate to "black box like" MICROS~1 products in an acceptable way.

Just imagine, if MICROS~1 released the specs for everything they have, in very short time Linux and UNIX would provide everything most "Windows" users are that proud of, and along with the latest "Vista" deals ("Get 'Vista', and by the way, get a new PC.") "Windows" has the chance to be less and less interesting to customers, because it costs too much when the requested functionalities can be obtained by using Linux / UNIX for free.

"But if Microsoft makes it easier for Windows to properly communicate with alternative OSes it just might convert some people back to Windows."

No, I don't think so. Most users of non-"Windows" OSes know why they've leaved "the boat", and even if "Windows" provided what is already standard in Linux / UNIX world for years, what would be the benefit for the individuals? The same power for much more money.

"They should understand that if an OS is to stay it shouldn't try to do that by forcing people to use only that OS: it should rather just try prove it is better to use than the other ones yet allow one to exchange information with the "inferior" OSes just as easily as with other machines running the same OS."

But I think they've done this since they started existing, hm?

"Bad interoperability usually translates to inferior and as such it's actually bad PR for them."

Yes, I agree here. I think that's why Linux and UNIX OSes are so popular among users who know about the importance of interoperability. But as you will admit, the average home users of "Windows" don't care for interoperability.

MS have plenty of Novell/SuSe licenses... HP are more likely losing some old Unix boxes and gaining a Novell box as a replacement, as part of the "you scratch our back, we'll pay you loads of money and promise not to litigate about software patents" agreement.

Unless you meant MS were gaining some linux servers....?

Microsoft bought a few Linux servers to host a xmas LAN party, they will all bring their XP machines in from home, and connect up to play Enemy Territory with the xmas skins of axis grinch and the allies in santa hats. Medics throw out presents and field ops throw out crackers.


BTW - This is lies, I made it up.......

Edited 2007-12-22 09:46

I'm pretty confident that the Microsoft internal network runs almost exclusively on Windows. I'd expect to see pigs flying first.

I'd expect to see pigs flying first.

Most police forces have had helicopters for some time now. If I were you I would dig around the MS internal network to see if there aren't some SAMBA servers doing some stuff.

Have a search on netcraft.com

Site Site Report First seen Netblock OS
1. www.microsoft.com Site Report August 1995 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2008
2. update.microsoft.com Site Report February 2005 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
3. download.microsoft.com Site Report August 1999 ADSL endpoints NAT conections only Linux
4. v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com Site Report January 2004 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003
5. search.microsoft.com Site Report January 1997 ADSL endpoints NAT conections only Linux



And that was only after one search...

Yeah... parts of the external network which are hosted by other companies (probably akamai, but I'm not sure) run other OSes. HotMail also ran on BSD before it was converted to run Windows. That was a pretty important step for Windows because it forced the ironing out of a number of problems (a long time ago).