Good as well as bad news for Microsoft on the legal front. Their good news is that a judge has rejected Go Computing's claim that Microsoft used dirty tricks to keep it out of the operating system market. However, their bad news is that an EU committee ruled on Monday that Microsoft failed to comply with a landmark antitrust decision, paving the way for fines of up to 2 million euros a day, a source familiar with the situation said.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
Fine - I accept and agree with that. They can tend to be a bit "slack" when it comes to meeting demands (however stupid some of them may be - I again refer to Windows XP N edition).
But let's look at the networking issue from yet another perspective:
Novell Netware.
Netware is (as many of you probably know) a completely independent file server that allows for single sign-on and access to shared data.
Windows comes with basic support for Netware (as much as accessing files).
But Novell also make their own client software that allows a Windows machine to actually log-on to the network.
Why doesn't someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client software if they're that interested in it?
Edited 2006-07-04 03:18
Member since:2005-11-11
//Why doesn't someone in the Linux community make a Windows client if they're that interested in it?//
(1) They do. It is called Samba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_software
"Samba was originally developed for Unix by Andrew Tridgell at the Australian National University, originally by reverse-engineering the protocol used by DEC PATHWORKS server software using a packet sniffer. Tridgell later discovered that the protocol was largely identical to that used by other network server systems, including Microsoft's LAN Manager software, and he decided to focus on Microsoft network compatibility after that."
What is interesting is that Windows networking is actually based on a standard, but it has been deliberately "corrupted" ... made obscure ... changed so that it wouldn't work with anything other than other Windows platforms.
(2) Samba can only work in certain roles. It has limited functionality. The only reason is that it is limited is that Microsoft have deliberately made their networking obscure and hard to work with.
It is this #2 point that Microsoft has been found guilty of ant-trust actiions and required to correct. Microsoft has refused. That is why they now face fines.
Member since:2005-07-06
Why doesn't someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client software if they're that interested in it?
Already available, setup your Linux server using NFS plus OpenLDAP, and install Services for UNIX (SFU), which is a free download off the Microsoft website, on the end users Windows XP machine (minimum requirement, professional, but there are third party implementations for older versions), and you'll have access to the exported home directory via Windows own NFS client.
Edited 2006-07-04 07:59
Member since:2006-06-15
Member since:
2005-11-11
//If the EU wants certain deliverables, they should write up with some exact and precise specifications for what they want //
The EU has said they want specifications for Microsofts networking protocols to be published and made free to use, in order to allow competition.
There is an accepted standard way to document protocols. There is a standard pseudo-language for it. Every other networking protocol has such a specification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Of_Temporal_Ordering_Specific...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_language
It would take about 30 pages (estimated) for Microsoft to specifiy their protocols using the standard notations. Anyone could then implement an interoperable version of that protocol, and allow either: (1) a non-windows client (ie Mac or Linux) to log in to and use a Windows server, or (2) allow a Linux or Mac or Sun Solaris server to include a set of services to be a domain controller and allow a Windows clients to log in.
Instead of doing this, Microsoft offered first several thousand pages of unusable drivel (unusable according to the independent expert who Microsoft themselves chose), then they offered their encumbered, copyrighted source code. The EU wants neither. They just want the protocols specified in the accepted, useable ways.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:09