Microsoft argues that revealing its server protocols would violate its intellectual property rights, but the Free Software Foundation Europe believes that the software giant’s ‘secret’ information is just a messy implementation of standard technologies.
..that EU & FSF EU are right about this one?
What’s next? Coca-Cola has to provide details of how to make Coke?
And no, MS is not even near monopoly on server side, so what is their excuse for forcing MS to do it?
The other day I read news saying MS asked Washington for help on this..
But you don’t need interoperability between Pepsi and Coke.
But Windows and linux are not soft drinks. The latter need to communicate properly with each other. The problem is that Microsoft took the standard technology that was used and ruined it to make it incompatible (without any real improvement)
But Windows and linux are not soft drinks. The latter need to communicate properly with each other.
It’s not a problem. All you have to do is – pay to MS and you’re good to go.
What EU & FSF EU want is to have MS give specs for free.
I don’t think that is the way to go.
The problem is that Microsoft took the standard technology that was used and ruined it to make it incompatible (without any real improvement)
Well, same can be said for many, many other companies and technologies. For example, some Unix-hard-core people say Linux is ruining the whole Unix idea by poor implementation, etc. Please, let’s not go into that discussion because, in my oppinion, you can create your own protocol any way you want, even if that means taking open one and making it messy. It’s your choice.
That’s not correct. To see Microsoft’s source code under shared source, you may not even have to pay, you have to sign NDA’s.
Then you put yourself at risk of being sued later for reimplementing simple ideas in their code; because you saw it there so surely you didn’t think of it yourself later on, you were using your incredible memory instead.
There are a lot of risks to looking at someone elses source, especially when they print in it that it’s theres, and all the ideas it creates are their’s too (according to some of their lawyers).
It’s not a problem. All you have to do is – pay to MS and you’re good to go.
Are you stupid or shilling? About the only competition
for MS out there is the open source systems. Paying MS is out of the question for these projects and you should know that. Besides, who has the right to controll access to your information? You or MS?
What EU & FSF EU want is to have MS give specs for free.
Yes, because they are using their illegal monopoly as a levereage to gain marketshare where they are weak.
I don’t think that is the way to go.
Of course you don’t if you are a MS-employee. Everything depends on where you stand, right?
Well, same can be said for many, many other companies and technologies. For example, some Unix-hard-core people say Linux is ruining the whole Unix idea by poor implementation, etc.
I call FUD. Please cite examples of this. Also explain this “Unix idea”. Explain in what way linux ruins this that ATT and SCO lawers haven’t already ruined.
Please, let’s not go into that discussion because, in my oppinion, you can create your own protocol any way you want, even if that means taking open one and making it messy. It’s your choice.
Of course. But not when you are using it on purpose destroy competition and you are a convicted monopolist.
Paying MS is out of the question for these projects and you should know that.
So, if I can’t afford to buy something, I should demand that it is free? Well, yes, I can do that.. demand.
Besides, who has the right to controll access to your information? You or MS?
How is Microsoft stopping you from controlling your information? What are you talking about?
Besides, you can always opt not to use Windows.
But not when you are using it on purpose destroy competition
Whoooooo!!!!! HEAR, HEAR, HEAR: MS is trying to destroy the competition. How dare they!
And I am supposed to take you seriously..?
and you are a convicted monopolist.
So?
Anyway, MS doesn’t have monopoly on server market.
I think he’s referring to the information you create based on their source you saw; who ends up controlling it when you publish code that looks an awful lot like theirs under the GPL? How much will you be sued for?
And the next problem: Microsoft doesn’t have to let you look at their code. Their shared source is for private modifications, educational, and that sort of thing. They’re not going to give it to you so you can interoperate with their stuff: They don’t want you do.
These things actually extend far beyond the server issue. Kerberos is used to login to Windows domain servers: It’s needed to setup clients to login to Windows domains. Or to setup servers to act as Windows domains with the clients.
SMB is used for all filesharing under Windows. I think Samba has pretty well reverse engineered it (when it fails I’m never sure whom to blaim, the bad serverless design or the broken reverse engineering).
LDAP is also something needed to create clients.
The problem is with Microsofts “embrace and extend” policy when it comes to standards. There are two correct ways to extend a standard: Propose the extension as an addition to the standard. Or, don’t claim to be standards compliant.
I’m not convinced they really should have to hand over source, or even documentation. But I do think their attitude towards standards has been extremely pathetic and everyone buying their software should be well aware of the lock-in they face.
Don’t keep saying they aren’t a server monopoly, we know. The problem is that they are a client monopoly, and these protocols are used for communications with clients. It’s pretty tough to changeover ALL of your client and server stuff at once; and doing it slowly is expensive (redundant servers, slow communications waiting for reduncant servers to merge, etc).
you can create your own protocol any way you want, even if that means taking open one and making it messy. It’s your choice.
No that’s anti-competitive behaviour. The EU correctly assesed that MS was trying to leverage its desktop monopoly into a file and print server monopoly. They proposed the opening of the MS CIFS protocols as a way of preventing this. BTW CIFS (Common Internet File system) is like the late and unlamented Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire. The CIFS is neither common, internet related nor a file system.
MS is a convicted illegal monopoly in the US, but the legal system gave it a little less than a slap on the wrist. The EU punishment is what the US courts should have done after MS was found guilty of Sherman act anti-trust violations.
The problem is that Microsoft took the standard technology that was used and ruined it to make it incompatible (without any real improvement)
Maybe, but is this illegal?
if its used to give their products a advantage over the competition, maybe. but then im no lawyer…
its kinda like your electrical company starting to supply a non-standard voltage so that they can sell you their own electrical devices while the competition can not. (people will most likely find flaws in this, just like most other comparisons. but as long as it gets people thinging then its working
)
“What’s next? Coca-Cola has to provide details of how to make Coke? ”
Yes, part of the problem is that they are successful american companies. That is something the EU certainly wants to curb
What’s next? Coca-Cola has to provide details of how to make Coke?
No. But customer shouldn’t die from Pepsi if he was first drinking Coca-Cola either.
And no, MS is not even near monopoly on server side, so what is their excuse for forcing MS to do it?
If you have both *niX and Windows servers, network should be at least able to cooperate. Last thing you’d like is to have two completely separated networks.
But, as I see it. MS is only loosing money with this stuborness. For example, this week I pushed Notes (Linux) over .Net (Exchange) custom made application, simply for a reason that company setup until then has been 90-10% Linux-Windows (servers only). Just why in the world would I bother with something that doesn’t interoperates on all fields? It is easier to ignore non-players and just use what it works (Yes, just the fact that it doesn’t interoperates with other platforms is reason enough to say their solution doesn’t work, and client understood it perfectly from the forst moment). And since those 10% is in process of removal too (it is easier to move some apps on Notes than provide interoperation between old apps on Windows servers (one MSSQL and one Access app) and Notes), well… I don’t care, it is MS problem not mine. Fact is they lost client which buys about 3-5 servers per year. And this is not the only example. It is more and more frequent.
While I say that I agree with your comment about no excuse, I also say it is MS that is loosing not others by not taking this opportunity.
What’s next? Coca-Cola has to provide details of how to make Coke?
No. It is closer to Ford selling cars & gasoline and the EU asking it to provide details on what gasoline is used by their cars.
And no, MS is not even near monopoly on server side, so what is their excuse for forcing MS to do it?
There are two sides to a network protocol: client and server.
If MS’s client software can only properly work with its own server software, you’re more or less forced to buy that too. They’re illegally leveraging their desktop monopoly to gain a server monopoly too.
Sorry but i want to laugh.
So Microsoft as rights, ok,agree. No questions.
Now what protocols as microsoft implemented to server side, that are totally diferent from the IEEE one’s. Almost all, because the problem is if a company aplies a protocol ‘all’ diferent implementations that follow such protocol must comunicate. That’s a protocol, set of rules to something work.
If something doesn’t work, only one thing comes to my idea ‘bad protocol implementation’, or better monopolium to exclude others. If microsoft has developed such protocol she has rights, but the true is that i bet many are just copy paste of others…
And by the way EU doesn’t want to curve no-one, last time i check there was country that declared a war about some oil in iraque, that was curve…
Every empire has begining and un END. So take a seat and whatch how MS goes down NOT because they are monopolist but becase they are too greedy and arogant want to have it all.
If anyone at OS News has their lights on, this is probably about the time when you suspend anonymous posting for a week, unless you think this constant high octane flamewar is something worth actively seeking, in which case you should just come clean and admit you like it.
Why does this have to go into a flamewar EU vs US?
No one has picked on US as a whole only a company, that should know better then staying with the old and close themself in until their doom.
Last time I checked they had buisness all over the world and not only in US, if they want to play god in their original country then fine.
IMHO it is about time that EU stay up against the big ones to help the little ones, just as US has done a long time but more unpleasently.
Protocols is along with API’s a necesserity that they are public so that a programmer can use them if s/he wants to in their project. But apperently Microsoft don’t wan’t to play nice with others, one begins to wonder why? more bugs and holes in the already broken glass windows.
the problem with microsoft is that it is not competing with quality of it’s products (in which case I would have no problems that MS is “destroying” competition)
It is competing with political and financial muscle, which benefits them, but not the user. They muscle their way into markets.
In the EU at least the consumer stands a chance, and I think it’s right for some organizations in the EU to put questions marks at microsoft dubious marketing tactics and products.
the problem with microsoft is that it is not competing with quality of it’s products (in which case I would have no problems that MS is “destroying” competition)
Oh come on..
Last time I checked, Microsoft DID beat Novell with quality of their products.
Last time I checked, Microsoft DID beat IBM’s OS/2 with quality of their products.
Last time I checked, interesting thing about Linux was NOT the superb quality of it, but some other stuff: price, open source, community.. (NOTE: please, don’t take this as trashing Linux, it is not).
It is competing with political and financial muscle, which benefits them, but not the user. They muscle their way into markets.
Well, one could also say that FSF is using politicians from EU to muscle Linux into the market. Right?
Last time I checked, Microsoft DID beat Novell with quality of their products.
When did that happen??? Novell server was great, far more stable than anything and now they are using Linux.
Last time I checked, Microsoft DID beat IBM’s OS/2 with quality of their products.
No they beat OS/2 with faul play, and IBMs stupidity. But no way they beat them with quality. Check the facts.
1. IBM computer department signed deal to ship 6 million Windows with their computers day before OS/2 was released with excuse that they didn’t believed that software team will succed to release on THE date.
2. MS avoided to release Win95 compatibility features which they agreed with IBM (excuse was not stable API) even long after OSR2 was out.
3. IBM didn’t provide any development tools with OS/2
Last time I checked, interesting thing about Linux was NOT the superb quality of it, but some other stuff: price, open source, community.. (NOTE: please, don’t take this as trashing Linux, it is not).
Actualy you could say I’m waiting for 15 years now for Windows to get to acceptable quality (well, 6 years ago I stopped waiting and moved on).
If you talked about Linux on desktop, your comment is fair enough (it is getting there, but still it is not there), but if you talked about server, you’re just talking trash without a clue.
Actualy you could say I’m waiting for 15 years now for Windows to get to acceptable quality (well, 6 years ago I stopped waiting and moved on).
That is because you probably used Win 9x and not NT branch?
I use Windows NT (NT, 2000, XP, 2003) both at home and at work for more than 7 years and those just work great. No problems on Windows if you follow the same rules that you do when using Unix/Linux. Yeah, do not, under any circumstances, run I_LOVE_BRITNEY.EXE as administrator. Guess what if you do?
Linux? We didn’t have a decent office suite or browser until 2 years ago. And you were waiting for Windows to get better? Yeah, right.
Just a few days ago Windows servers captured #1 postition in terms of server sales worldwide according to IDC. How did that happen? Over nigt? Buddy, Windows 2003 ROCKS and market has recognized the quality.
If you talked about Linux on desktop, your comment is fair enough (it is getting there, but still it is not there)
Look, I use both Windows and Linux every day and really love using them both. However, I think Linux has no advantages in terms of quality. Price, source code – yes. Quality? Nope.
I will conclude that we disagree, if you let me.
Sorry, replied to my self. Read my other answer.
That is because you probably used Win 9x and not NT branch?
NT. C’mon, have you ever developed in Win9x? Even NT sucked for that, but 9x was a universal disaster. And as I tested (or was forced to develop one app under XP) XP is just a little better than NT.
Linux? We didn’t have a decent office suite or browser until 2 years ago. And you were waiting for Windows to get better? Yeah, right.
Actualy, I did.
??? Office? I don’t need Office. Did I say that? btw. StarOffice was there for a long time. It hasn’t started with OO.o. And for all those 2 or 3 documents I wrote (on Linux and Windows in first 3-4 years) I used same Office suite.
terminals, coding tools (and by that I mean no environments like Delphi or VS, even anjuta is too much for my taste), Gimp, all kinds of server services. This is what I need, not Office.
And even Netscape 4.71 was good enough browser for my taste and needs. In fact I used Netscape on Windows and on Linux. So what was missing in my case?
There is only one difference between then and now. Now I don’t have time so I just use Gnome as it is. But all my desktops before were heavily customized to direct all my needs as best as possible. Speaking for me not for average user. Average user doesn’t go to edit sources so that something works as he expects. For average user Linux as desktop was disaster unless someone set it up for you. And I don’t believe that would be enough in those times either
All I can say now is that my Linux desktop is far worster now than it was in those first years. Now everything is few (or more) clicks away, while before it was one click or shortcut away.
Just a few days ago Windows servers captured #1 postition in terms of server sales worldwide according to IDC. How did that happen? Over nigt? Buddy, Windows 2003 ROCKS and market has recognized the quality.
It is sad if they achieved that just a few days ago. For example, I sell 1 RHEL on 15 CentOS servers. It depends wheter customer wants one or the other.
Most widely deployed server distro is probably Debian. You can’t buy Debian. Again, both Fedora and CentOS have greater number of deployments than RHEL.
What was your comment prooving? If you would like to see how much 2003 rocks then look at this graph here.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/10/04/october_2005_web_serve…
Look at second graph
Notice how number of 2003 suddenly raised when “Get the Facts” started. And 3 months later? I wouldn’t say those were satisfied customers which would say that 2003 ROCKS.
Look, I use both Windows and Linux every day and really love using them both. However, I think Linux has no advantages in terms of quality. Price, source code – yes. Quality? Nope.
It only depends what you need. In desktop, I agree. On server, I don’t.
I will conclude that we disagree, if you let me.
Yep. But I suggest you, that you stand behind the facts, not words.
p.s. I’m always specifiying my own opinion from what I think it would be general opinion.
It is sad if they achieved that just a few days ago.
Why would it be sad? They achieved this in less than 10 years.
Besides:
a) Linux is free
b) It is easier to migrate Unix->Linux than Unix->Windows
So, Windows entered the market late and had well known Unix servers against itself plus free Linux.
Yet, they did it. Why didn’t Linux achieve that?
Compare Windows’ penetration of server market to Linux’s penetration of desktop? LOL Joke.
What was your comment prooving? If you would like to see how much 2003 rocks then look at this graph here.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/10/04/october_2005_web_serve…..
Look at second graph
Buddy, do you understand
a) what Netcraft’s graphs present? I’ll tell you: no, you don’t.
b) that Apache server is running on other systems such as FreeBSD and Windows? Where I work we use Apache on Windows.
But pay attention to: a). That is not the # of servers. No, it is not. Sorry, but you’re flat wrong and you don’t understand those graphs. Google for an explanation.
Take a look: http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/
As a customer, you do NOT want a monopoly.
Well, I agree. However, that doesn’t give me the right to force them to do something just because I am a lawmaker.
Look, in the end, EU will do whatever thay want to, but it will be unjust should they decide to force MS to share their technology for free. Microsoft has its protocols and those are trade secret. No company in the world ever was forced to share its trade secrets with competition for free. Maybe EU will force MS to do it, but it will be wrongdoing.
“However, that doesn’t give me the right to force them to do something just because I am a lawmaker.
Look, in the end, EU will do whatever thay want to, but it will be unjust should they decide to force MS to share their technology for free. Microsoft has its protocols and those are trade secret. No company in the world ever was forced to share its trade secrets with competition for free. Maybe EU will force MS to do it, but it will be wrongdoing.”
This is just wrong.
What if it were a tade secret of Boeing’s on how to land at LA International airport?
What if it were a trade secret of Westinghouse on how to make an appliance work with domestic mains supply?
I’ll tell you what would happen – guaranteed monopolies. Rip-off prices.
There can be no trade secrets in areas of interoperability and interfaces with standards.
File formats and network protocols should be standards in the same way as airport landing procedures and domestic mains electricity supplies are, and for the same reasons.
If Microsoft cannot and will not be forced to reveal their own protocols, then they should be forced to offer interoperable standards in addition to their own. Microsoft should either: (1) open their standards for interoperability, or (2) offer alternative interoperable standards in addition to their own – such as OpenDocument suport in Office and support for standard NFS and Kerebros in networking protocols.
Well, you can always install Services for Unix (free) on Windows. SFU will also be part of Windows 2003 R2.
MS Virtual Server, IIRC, will also be included in R2.
There, you have your interoperability.
File formats and network protocols should be standards in the same way as airport landing procedures and domestic mains electricity supplies are, and for the same reasons.
Says who? MP3 should be available to anyone, free of charge, then?
Well, I disagree.
MS Virtual Server, IIRC, will also be included in R2.
I just checked, I think I was wrong about this.
SFU will be in R2 but not the MS Virtual Server.
Also in Windows 2003 R2:
Services for NetWare 5.02 SP2. A cumulative set of updates and services that have been offered since the release of Services for Netware 5.01 SP 1.
You said something about interoperability?
You are joking, aren’t you?
After your monologue, ok, I’ve laughed enough, you’ve proven me that you don’t know what you talk about. All you showed is that you’re pumped with MS advertising.
Netcraft link
No, I just tried to provide picture, how many people tried WS2003 and went back. Obviously I failed to present what I wanted, or at least you want to see different picture.
Why would it be sad? They achieved this in less than 10 years.
You’re comparing counted sold units (Windows are all counted and sold). This is why it is sad.
btw. MS achieved that because:
– Solaris has decline. Although I say again that they might come back with OpenSolaris, that is if they succed to opensource completely. Even I will start offering Solaris to customers that want it. For now I just redirected those to people that support Solaris.
– AIX cancelled
– Sco is dying (or migrating its bussines to litigation)
– HP/UX was canceled
– Linux is mostly downloaded and not counted.
Besides:
a) Linux is free
b) It is easier to migrate Unix->Linux than Unix->Windows
So, Windows entered the market late and had well known Unix servers against itself plus free Linux.
Yes, it is free and as such very rarely counted:)
Yes. Now it is. Still what has that to do with counted linux servers? Much, much more than half of Linux servers is not counted.
My example. Now around 60 servers. 2RHEL (58 uncounted, 2 counted). Other downloaded and not counted? Windows server 1 and counted.
btw. And I migrated (that would be around 80% of my servers) from Windows to Linux. For example 7 exchange servers where customers now don’t have calendars, but at least mail works without problems. (yes, I expect you’ll say that support probably sucked, why is this when IT ROCKS, and it is SOO EASY compared to Linux? A lot of wannabe-admins in Windows world or what? I doubt there are so many)
Services for NetWare 5.02 SP2
Any Netware support provided by MS was worth shit. All that it was used it was to show how MS network services are better (they just forget to say they cripled Netware). Remember Netware client? Anyone using windws client had only problems until he installed Novell Netware Client. Novell lost a lot of customers on this false advertising.
Same is with Services for Unix. They are a joke (although I say that they are better than nothing for someone relying on MS platforms if he has to connect his MS server with *niX servers (and plan migration from *niX). Going other way, well that part sucks). Have you even tested them? I have. Joke, I say.
MS interoperability is a one-way not two-way street.
Virtual Server and interoperability
Yeah, right. If I install BEOS on VMWare doesn’t mean interoperability. Check the word meaning.
Virtual server is running another (and possibly different) OS under OS.
Interoperability is communication between software or services (preferably different).
Crossplatform interoperability is when interoperability happens between two or more different platforms (preferably different).
{{File formats and network protocols should be standards in the same way as airport landing procedures and domestic mains electricity supplies are, and for the same reasons.}}
“Says who? MP3 should be available to anyone, free of charge, then?”
MP3 – is a submarine patent deal. The originators promoted it as an open standard (covenant not to sue, similar to MS XML announcement recently) – then they renegged. It is liveable as long as there is an open alternative. There is such, Ogg Vorbis – but Microsoft (and Microsoft alone) refuse to support such as these. That is the objection – there is no interoperability supported by Microsoft. Microsoft want to get you locked in to Microsoft only formats & protocols.
“Well, I disagree.”
Oh, so you want to be locked in and able to use only Microsoft product?
Must be a Microsoft employee, or worse, shill.
Microsoft should either: (1) open their standards for interoperability,
MS protocols are available. You just have to pay a fee to get specs.
So, what you’re saying is that MS should provide its technology for free. Why should they?
or (2) offer alternative interoperable standards in addition to their own – such as OpenDocument suport in Office and support for standard NFS and Kerebros in networking protocols.
Alternative standards are available through Services for Unix or virtual servers.
“Our company is using Windows SFU 3.5 to allow an existing UNIX application to operate unchanged in a Windows operating system environment, letting us direct our development resources where they are most needed: at improving the service we deliver to customers,” said Adrian Bowen, systems development manager at Group 4 Securitas Northern Ireland Ltd. “We’re pleased with the level of interoperability SFU has provided, and have already seen benefits in terms of scalability and manageability, which translate directly into cost savings.”
Next?
Edited 2005-11-26 02:08
Next?
You sound like an MS salesman Gonzo with your neat potted little success stories. In fact you probably are an MS salesman.
The purpose of SFU is not computer interoperabilty but to be able run Unix programs on Windows. Again they have to rely on legal plagiarism of open standards and software by including some GPL’d GNU tools in SFU. Though at least there they can’t mess with the code without making it public unlike with the BSD stuff they have used.
{{Microsoft should either: (1) open their standards for interoperability,}}
“MS protocols are available. You just have to pay a fee to get specs.”
Disinformation. Microsoft network protocols are not published at all, nor are their file formats.
{{or (2) offer alternative interoperable standards in addition to their own – such as OpenDocument suport in Office and support for standard NFS and Kerebros in networking protocols.}}
“Alternative standards are available through Services for Unix or virtual servers.”
As far as I know, SFU does not provide the equivalent of Microsoft’s own networking.
SFU is not available as part of the standard OS. Microsoft standard clients are not interoperable – one must buy Microsoft servers to support Microsoft clients reliably – or at least this is the way Microsoft try to make it.
This is like Microsoft making a plane that cannot (by default) land at standard airports – so one has to buy either a Microsoft airport or purchase a Microsoft bolt-on extra to enable landing at normal airports – but with no safety guarantee or support guarantee for the bolt-on extra.
Next?
Disinformation. Microsoft network protocols are not published at all, nor are their file formats.
Not published, right. BUT if you pay, you will get full specs. How do you think, for example, Symantec’s tools work with NTFS? Reverse enigineered NTFS? Hehehe.. yeah, right.
SFU is not available as part of the standard OS.
No, but
1. It is available for free
2. It will be in Windows 2003 Server R2
However, specs ARE available. MS **must** give you the specs after you pay the fee. And they do just that.
SFU is not available as part of the standard OS.
No, but
1. It is available for free
2. It will be in Windows 2003 Server R2
1. It is available without any support.
2. I don’t want a Windows server – way too expensive, one must pay for CALs, and one needs a separate server for every little service. No, want I want is for a standard Windows client to be (out of the box) fully interoperable with servers from any vendor, or with open standard file formats.
Once again for the MS sheeple out there:
This situation is like Microsoft making a plane that cannot (by default) land at standard airports – so one has to buy either a Microsoft airport or purchase a Microsoft bolt-on extra to enable landing at normal airports – but with no safety guarantee or support guarantee for the bolt-on extra.
Microsoft products are severely broken when it comes to interoperability. They just don’t have interoperability. Microsoft has deliberately made it so. You’d have to be crazy (or an MS sheeple) to purchase a product as broken as this – let alone one which is deliberately broken.
“However, specs ARE available. MS **must** give you the specs after you pay the fee. And they do just that.”
AFAIK the specs for Microsoft networking protocols and for Microsoft (binary) document formats are **NOT** available, even for a fee.
Further, even if one does purchase specifications from Microsoft where they are available, one must agree to all kinds of arbitrary retrictions.
This is like Microsoft charging a fee for instructions for oher “planes” to land at “Microsoft airports”, then charging a landing fee as well, and finally not allowing any plane to land at a Microsoft airport even after paying a fee for the instructions unless those instructions have been kept religiously hidden from anyone else looking at the aircraft.
How about getting some OSS developers off their lazy arses to write an NFS and (Unix/Linux compatible) Kerberos client for Windows?
You lot bitch and moan about what a crap proprietary protocol CIFS is but won’t put your money where your mouths are by trying to distribute a client for the “superior”, “open” protocols you promote as substitutes.
MS have provided open APIs for GINA and network redirectors. OSS developers can provide an NFS redirector and NFS or Kerberos authentication on Windows. You’re just looking to bludge of Microsoft’s work instead of doing some of your own.
How about getting some OSS developers off their lazy arses to write an NFS and (Unix/Linux compatible) Kerberos client for Windows?
You lot bitch and moan about what a crap proprietary protocol CIFS is but won’t put your money where your mouths are by trying to distribute a client for the “superior”, “open” protocols you promote as substitutes.
MS have provided open APIs for GINA and network redirectors. OSS developers can provide an NFS redirector and NFS or Kerberos authentication on Windows. You’re just looking to bludge of Microsoft’s work instead of doing some of your own.
This won’t work, and you know that. It would be a cludge for many reasons, and besides MS would probably kill any support calls from anyone using such programs, no matter if the problem was related to it or not.
Finally, you lot bitch and moan about poor poor microsoft not being allowed to use it’s illgotten monopoly to destroy what’s left of the competition. Tell me how does it feel to be such an utterly cheap intellectual whore?
“How about getting some OSS developers off their lazy arses to write an NFS and (Unix/Linux compatible) Kerberos client for Windows?”
A filesystem, and in particular a networked filesystem, has to be integrated throughout the OS.
A bolt-on client is not truly feasible. It would look a bit like an ftp program (eg. FileZilla) at best.
What is required for a network terminal (NT) is the ability to log-on and get authorisation from the netwrok servers, and then to be able to use server drives as network mounted drives on the network terminal – so that these drives appear in the “Save As” dialog boxes for example.
That level of integration is required to be a fundamental part of the OS itself.
Also, because authentication is fundamental to security (and permissions and the like), that support likewise has to be built in to the OS itself.
“OSS developers .. write an NFS and (Unix/Linux compatible) Kerberos client for Windows?”
You want OSS developers to re-write a significant part of the Windows kernel? Give OSS developers access to source code of the core of Windows?
Riiiiiiight. I can see that happening.
You’re a moron and that’s called a strawman argument.
I didn’t ask OSS developers to redevelop a large part of the Windows kernel or OS. I asked them to develop an authentication package and network redirector for the filthy protocols they call superior. Microsoft have been kind enough to provide a modular authentication and network stack to do just that. The open source world even has a company (Novell) with experience in writing exactly those software compononents. That option has been available for more than a decade but OSS developers continue to decline that opportunity and instead waste their time whingeing about Microsoft’s protocols.
It shouldn’t be a surprise, I suppose. The history of OSS is one devoid of innovation and rife with plagiarism. Through the kernel, command line, GUI, office and desktop applications, OSS developers have chosen to plagiarise the work of others instead of coming up with any ideas of their own.
Here’s some URLs for you and the OSS developers that have spent the last decade searching. Oddly enough, I found it in around 5 minutes.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/se…
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/05/05/SecurityBriefs/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/IF…
“I didn’t ask OSS developers to redevelop a large part of the Windows kernel or OS.”
Yes, you did.
Also, you asked OSS developers to develop something which should be a part of any OS that wants to call itself a “Network Terminal” and you had a rant at OSS developers for not working on something that Microsoft has been at pains to keep out of its product for over ten years.
You sir are the moron in even trying to defend a lock-in policy such as this one of Microsoft’s.
The one and only party that benefits from Microsoft’s attempts at lock-in is Microsoft. If you were truly a customer and end user of Microsoft client products, you would have a keen interest in Microsoft providing the flexibility and options that being able to have Windows clients work with alternative servers and on alternative networks would bring.
Instead you try to turn Micrsofts lock-in policy into some sort of deranged and misguided rant at OSS developers.
This squarely places you in the position of shill or astroturfer.
Again (because you seem a little slow) I didn’t ask OSS developers to redevelop a large part of the Windows kernel or OS. If they want to interoperate with Windows, OSS developers need to develop precisely two modest components – a GINA and a network redirector. I’ve no doubt that’s beyond your very limited understanding but ask your favourite OSS developer if he’s got the patience and the months of free time to explain it to you.
Microsoft simply don’t have a lock in policy. They let you replace any protocol you don’t like. They provide public documentation of the APIs for those interested. You can’t find one for NFS or Unix style Kerberos, though, because OSS developers are too lazy to develop them.
And stop calling NT “Network Terminal.” That’s not what it stands for and you only expose yourself as an ignorant idiot by using that term.
try again.
novell did the stupid thing of using windows9x as their desktop client of choice. this allowed microsoft to bundle their exchange client with the os and then ship out a replacement server for what novell was supplying.
de-facto monopoly on one end used to leverage the other end.
os/2 failed on install base. basicly people hate to learn new things. and windows9x had enough familiarity (and it allowed the user to go from dos+win3.x with just upgrade floppys/cd) and could run the existing apps people where using.
there is a reason why MS bends over backwards for backwards compatiblity. hell, didnt they allow good old simcity to perform a illegal action with memory usage just so that it would still work when people upgraded? no wonder its a gigantic security problem…
linux is fighting the same upstream battle that os/2 did. to much trouble in going from one to the other. wine helps a bit, but didnt os/2 have the same ability to run native windows apps? well, os/2 is still around, now rebranded as ecomstation. mostly used by some banks from what i understand.
only reason apple is still around is that they are primarily in the biz of selling hardware. i wonder what will happen to osx ones they go fully intel. somehow i have a feel people will install windows, and more and more end up booting into it rather then osx
but thats just guesswork from my side.
as for FSF using the eu to muscle onto the market, maybe. but it can allso be seen as the eu shaking for their reliance on a foregin product. kinda like how the chinese ended up in a war with england over opium trade at one time. the chinese didnt want it, england was making big bucks pushing it…
os/2 failed on install base.
This is somewhat true. Software developers tended to only develop for Windows, and the lack of native apps hurt OS/2. Even so, OS/2 managed to gain between 10% and 20% of the desktop market during its height.
basicly people hate to learn new things. and windows9x had enough familiarity (and it allowed the user to go from dos+win3.x with just upgrade floppys/cd) and could run the existing apps people where using.
The above is not correct.
The Windows 95 desktop was a huge change, just as the OS/2 desktop would have been, but the two new 32-bit desktops (OS/2 and Windows 95) had far more in common with each other than either did with Windows 3.1.
Both used the second mouse button to bring up context menus (a new concept for Windows users, and one that many Win 3.1 suers cited as a reason for not moving to OS/2), and both used drag-and-drop to a certain extent (OS/2 far more than Windows 95, or even XP).
In addition, both were able to install over an existing Windows 3.1 + DOS installation, both were able to run Windows 3.1 and DOS software, both were able to boot into a real DOS when configured to do so (OS/2’s Dual Boot), and OS/2’s ability to run DOS and Windows 3.1 software and multitask them was actually superior to Windows 95.
Under OS/2, one could run different DOS versions from boot diskette images concurrently in VDMs, the DOS mouse and sound drivers weren’t required (and thus didn’t take up lower memory within a VDM), and if one had the memory, one could actually run separate isolated copies of WinOS2 in a manner which completely isolated them and also multitasked them preemptively).
OS/2 even came with IBM’s Boot Manager (something Win95 had no equivalent for), allowing one to keep their original DOS+Win3.1 setup, put OS/2 somewhere else, and they select between the two at boot time just as LILO or Grub let Linux users to these days.
Neither similarity nor the ability to run older DOS and Windows 3.1 software were factors in choosing Windows 95 over OS/2.
The main reason people went to Windows 95 were (1) preloads, making the move an easy one, (2) hype in the press, making Windows 95 look like the proverbial Second Coming, and (3) a feeling that such a move was an inevitability anyway.
They avoided OS/2 because (1) it usually wasn’t preloaded, meaning they actually had to install it themselves, (2) it wasn’t a flavor of “Windows” (even though it had a real live copy of Windows 3.1 or could use an existing one), making it seem strange and different when it really wasn’t, and (3) it wasn’t seen as a necessary move by many (in 1992, internet connectivity wasn’t a big deal, and a lot of people were actually *happy* with their Windows 3.1 installations.
de-facto monopoly on one end used to leverage the other end.
Hell, we should demand, among other things:
1) that Notepad is excluded from Windows
2) that NTFS is excluded from Windows
…
I know a company that creates this text-editor, it’s called UltraEdit. Sure, Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to ship Notepad with Windows because they are extending their de-facto monopoly on one end (desktop OS market) to leverage the other end (text editors) ???
Makes sense? Not for me.
I know a company that creates this text-editor, it’s called UltraEdit. Sure, Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to ship Notepad with Windows because they are extending their de-facto monopoly on one end (desktop OS market) to leverage the other end (text editors) ???
Makes sense? Not for me.
No you don’t make sense to me. We are not discussing bundling we are discussing computer file and print serving protocols. MS is only too happy to expose its API’s in order to attract developers, but tries to hide the server protocols behind so called “intellectual property” claims. We all know in this case these claims consist of nothing more than plagiarism of open standards, made available by IBM and MIT, which have then been booby trapped with hidden gotcha’s to prevent interoperability.
Not very ethical behaviour to me. If you believe being dependant on a monopoly is a good thing, then not only are you at odds with the US and European legal systems but you are also in favour of losing your own freedom of choice.
Edited 2005-11-26 03:49
Why do some Americans defend MS?
Patriotism?
If so, you shouldn’t forget most of WinXP was written in India and Indonesia (or the philipines?). MS is not loyal to the citizens of the United States, so neither should the people be loyal to MS.
Just look at how much money MS is making (almost stealing?!) of the US citizens (and the rest of the world).
This is not about the EU trying to destroy the USA.
It’s about getting a monstrous company to play fair (even if only a bit).
There have been people defending Microsoft’s actions in various forums since I started getting involved in the various OS debates back in 1990 or so.
Some of them have fairly rational reasons for their positions, and I can related to them to a certain extent, but there always seems to be a certain subset of users who take what appears to be an irrationally positive position, often discounting both past history and the actual relative technical and functional merits of the competition that Microsoft was able to overcome.
I don’t think it has anything to do with “being American” — most of the anti-Microsoft folks I know are also American.
If Microsoft is forced to share their technology for free, then why shouldn’t EU force owner of MP3 to do the same?
I’d love to have MP3 supported in my Fedora.
If not, then neither MS should be forced to do it.
Ugh, maybe because the Fraunehoffer Institute is NOT distributing an OS and actively denying others to preinstall it with the OGG/Vorbis decoder instead of their default MP3 decoder.
MS has a monopoly on the desktop OS market. That’s a proven fact in the view of the EU. That itself is OK. They reached it from zero, worked hard (for fitting definitions of “hard”) to reach it.
What is NOT OK, and actually illegal in the EU (as far sa I understand it) is using this monopoly to get a monopoly in connected market – office productivity software, server software, multimedia client software and codecs.
As a customer, you do NOT want a monopoly. Imagine you could only buy Ford cars, Siemens phones and computers from Dell (Intel, nVidia, Seagate components only). That there would be no other producers of cars, phones and computers. How good would they be? How cheap (compared to your income)?
As a company, you also do NOT want a monopoly, among your suppliers.
The only time you DO want a monopoly is in that market, in which you are selling your products.
I would assume that all of us OSNews readers are customers in many ways. As such, we should not accept monopoly in anything we buy.
It is absolutely hopeless at cross-platform interoperability. Not only does Microsoft not compete in the arena, not only does it not even try to compete, Microsoft goes out of its way to make sure that it’s products do not interoperate.
Two things about this irk me. The first is that sheeple are so stupid that they do buy Microsoft products even though Microsoft products have “lock-in” written all over them in big bold letters.
The other thing is that sheeple somehow even seem to think that Microsoft is the “best” or the “standard” that other products fail to work with. That view is the wrong way around entirely. 180 degrees about.
OTOH, if Microsoft do not want to interoperate, I do not suppose there is a realistic way to force them to do it. File formats or network protocols – they are both complex enough that it won’t be possible to force or mandate interoperability – Microsoft would have to want to do it if interoperability were to actually work.
I do find it annoying when there is such an obvious flaw in Microsoft products (no interoperability, deliberate obfuscation in areas that should be interoperable) and yet still not only do sheeple allow themselves to be locked in – they come on to sites like these and cheer about Microsoft (and hence in a way they celebrate their own stupidity).
Edited 2005-11-26 00:53
They can’t claim patents, if I understand correct, patents are explicitly forbidden to be used against interoperabillity.
And they can’t they claim trade secrets on the things that’s allready disclosed as patents.
The purpose of SFU is not computer interoperabilty but to be able run Unix programs on Windows.
LOL
Streamline network management
Reduce system administration time with tools that centralize network management across UNIX and Windows platforms, such as the Two-way Password Synchronization and Server for Network Information System (NIS) components.
Unify file sharing
Unify data sharing and enable integrated, cross-platform file systems through the Network File System (NFS) client, server, and gateway.
1. It is available without any support.
What’s your point? You want (I guess, free) support for something you got for free?
You can pay consultant and you’ll have support for it.
want I want is for a standard Windows client to be (out of the box) fully interoperable with servers from any vendor, or with open standard file formats.
LOL You want.. I want a million dollars.
You should ask your Linux vendor to provide support for Windows. They won’t because they don’t want to pay fees to MS. And on top on everything, you don’t want to pay for that Linux neither. Nice
So, you wan’t pay for Linux, Linux vendor won’t pay MS, and MS won’t give it for free.
I think the problem starts with you. Pay your linux and make other people do the same, and you will have Linux<->Windows interop in every Linux shortly.
I want my Fedora to play MP3s out of the box. Well, it does not, nor I get support for it. Well, I guess one gets what one pays for.
You’d have to be crazy (or an MS sheeple) to purchase a product as broken as this – let alone one which is deliberately broken.
Well, Windows holds above 90% of desktop market, and a great piece of server market. Are you saying that all these companies/governements/customers.. are sheeps? I guess that makes you the the smart(ass)?
Yeah, right – everyone is crazy. Way to think.
Windows protocols work fine. Nothing is broken except your logic.
You can opt not to use Windows. Fine. And you can move to Europe or Iran, even better
Actually, France will do. LOL
Edited 2005-11-26 05:27
“What’s your point? You want (I guess, free) support for something you got for free? You can pay consultant and you’ll have support for it.”
Sigh. No, what I mean is that I want Microsoft to commit to supporting it, and not have it disappear on me in the next release. There is absolutely no such commitment from Microsoft – interoperability is **NOT** part of their standard product. How dense are you not to be able to understand that?
“LOL You want.. I want a million dollars.
You should ask your Linux vendor to provide support for Windows. They won’t because they don’t want to pay fees to MS. And on top on everything, you don’t want to pay for that Linux neither. Nice
So, you wan’t pay for Linux, Linux vendor won’t pay MS, and MS won’t give it for free.
I think the problem starts with you. Pay your linux and make other people do the same, and you will have Linux<->Windows interop in every Linux shortly. ”
No, not at all. Not a bit of it. If I buy a saw I expect it to be able to cut wood from any hardware store – not just Microsoft wood only.
I don’t expect this to be a capability supported by the saw manufacturer because they are good guys – I just expect it of the saw or otherwise the saw is broken and not fit for sale.
The problem is people like you who seem to think Microsoft has a God-given right to screw you and who cannot see that Microsoft products – in lacking interoperability – are just like saws that do not cut any but an exclusive expensive type of wood. These saws in reality are just not fit for sale – pity is that the American DOJ is too weak to be able to force unfit products such as these out of the market.
“Windows protocols work fine.”
They do not work fine at all. A Windows server is like a highway that only Fords can drive on, or like a electricity supply that will only power Westinghouse appliances. Any idiot can see that is purely unacceptable.
“Nothing is broken except your logic.”
Pfft.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic which simply says I don’t want any piece of a broken product that does not work with the rest of the world.
“You can opt not to use Windows. Fine.”
Wherever that is in my power to do, that is what I do – and I have a very good reason.
Sigh. No, what I mean is that I want Microsoft to commit to supporting it, and not have it disappear on me in the next release.
SFU will be part of next Windows 2003 R2.
Well, I believe we can assume it won’t disappear.
However, if you don’t trust them, don’t use Windows. As simple as that.
There is absolutely no such commitment from Microsoft – interoperability is **NOT** part of their standard product. How dense are you not to be able to understand that?
How can you say this when thay have announced that SFU will be in R2?
They do not work fine at all. A Windows server is like a highway that only Fords can drive on, or like a electricity supply that will only power Westinghouse appliances. Any idiot can see that is purely unacceptable.
My car is diesel and it won’t work if I put any gas in it. I have to put diesel.
Comparsions like that are useless.
Besides, if you put SFU on Windows Server, you’ll be fine in Unix environment.
What you basically want is Windows for free. Well, you can’t have it. Maybe you will, but not today.
What’s stopping you from demanding that Microsoft opens Win32 API (that is, the implementation = source code) for free?
Edited 2005-11-26 05:46
If I buy a saw I expect it to be able to cut wood from any hardware store – not just Microsoft wood only.
Why did you stop there? How about this:
If you buy a saw you should expect to be able to cut not only wood, but steel too.
As I said, comparsions like that are useless.
Windows is not Unix pal, that’s why it’s not called Winux or something like that.
However, with Server R2, you’ll get even that – support for Windows-Unix interop.
“Why did you stop there?”
Because that is what is required of a wood saw – that it cuts wood of all types. Not just Microsoft wood. If there is some tool that cuts only Microsoft wood then it cannot be sold as a wood saw.
“If you buy a saw you should expect to be able to cut not only wood, but steel too.”
If I bought a steel saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of steel.
If I bought a wood saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of wood.
If I bought a universal saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of wood, steel and plastic.
Likewise if I buy a client computer, I would expect it to be able to work as a client on any computer network. Such a thing is certainly feasible for standard protocols and services. Microsoft client products cannot do this – therefore they are broken and not fit for purpose.
“As I said, comparsions like that are useless.”
Pfft. You say they are useless only because they do not fit your arguement.
I can certainly get a Linux client or a Macintosh client that can work on all types of networks.
“Windows is not Unix pal, that’s why it’s not called Winux or something like that.”
I agree with this – as I say, Windows clients are severely broken and are not really clients at all.
“However, with Server R2, you’ll get even that – support for Windows-Unix interop.”
Sheesh Louise – how stupid can one get? I don’t want a Windows Server, I would however consider a Windows client machine if it weren’t broken.
At the moment I can’t buy a non-broken Windows client – so I guess that means I won’t be getting any Windows anything – right?
Therefore – a lost potential customer for Windows – all because it is broken in a way that Microsoft could oh so easily fix.
But Microsoft won’t fix this interoperability because they want to lock the sheeple in.
OK, fine – you don’t mind if I am not so stupid as to go there, OK?
You – you can do what you want. Just don’t expect me to swallow your koolaid, OK?
If I bought a steel saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of steel.
If I bought a wood saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of wood.
And if I bought Windows, I expect it to work with Windows.
If I bought a universal saw, I would expect it to be able to cut all types of wood, steel and plastic.
Then buy Windows Server R2.
Or let’s say this: Microsoft is not selling universal saw. Should you be able to force a company to make and sell something? Since when?
I want my car do be able to use both diesel and regular gas. I demand Ford to sell such a car.
“And if I bought Windows, I expect it to work with Windows.”
I however would expect a product called “NT” meaning “Network terminal” to work on a network as a terminal.
Windows doesn’t do that because it is broken.
“Then buy Windows Server R2.”
I don’t want Windows Server R2, I have no use for it. I might however have a use for a number of Windows clients, if only they weren’t broken.
“Microsoft is not selling universal saw. Should you be able to force a company to make and sell something? Since when?”
If they try to sell me a Windows NT (Network Terminal) client, then it should be able to work on a network as a terminal.
That is what Microsoft try to sell it as. It doesn’t work though, because it is broken.
“I want my car do be able to use both diesel and regular gas. I demand Ford to sell such a car.”
You have it backwards again. Try this:
‘I would buy a car that could run off both Shell and Texaco gasoline, but Ford won’t sell me such a car though they easily could. Happily I can buy a Honda instead.’
“The Network File System (NFS) client, NFS Server, User/Name Mapping, Telnet Server & Client, Password Sync and NIS Server components of Services for Unix are all present in the Windows Server 2003 R2 builds,” said Hilf, in response to one of the Slashdot questioners.
..
“Integrating this functionality in Windows Server 2003 R2 provides native support of cross-platform management tools, Windows/Unix interoperability and Unix to Windows application portability. This is a big help for many of the customers I talk to and something I will demonstrate at my LinuxWorld session this week.”
What is the problem guys? Windows <-> Unix interop you said? Come on.. give them credit where it’s due.
“What is the problem guys? Windows <-> Unix interop you said?”
The problem is that it is not on Windows clients. This is not Windows <-> Unix interop. It is Unix (client) <-> Windows (server) interop only.
No credit for that. It (marginally) extends the functionality of a Windows Server as a bit of a catch up for what a Linux server has long been able to do.
Windows clients are still very broken.
Just try to get a Windows client to operate with a CUPS server, or even with a generic Postscript networked printer without any third-party drivers.
“Besides, if you put SFU on Windows Server, you’ll be fine in Unix environment.”
Wrong way around. Microsoft needs to support other formats and protocols on its clients, not on its servers.
At the moment, standards are not supported by Windows clients. Windows clients are therefore badly broken.
“What you basically want is Windows for free. Well, you can’t have it.”
Nope. This is soooooo typical of a Windows fanboy. Once again you have it 180 degrees around the wrong way.
What I want is that if I am going to pay for a Windows client, I want it not to be broken when I get it. I want it to be able to interoperate with other platforms and other standard file formats, otherwise it is useless to me.
Why should I pay for something as broken as Windows is?
“What’s stopping you from demanding that Microsoft opens Win32 API (that is, the implementation = source code) for free?”
I haven’t demanded anything like that. If I am going to be expected to buy a product I want one which isn’t broken. I ask nothing of anyone other than that if they charge me for a product they should first make sure it is a working product.
If any company other than Microsoft put out a product as broken as Windows is in terms of being able to work with everything else – then any other manufacturer would be forced to do a product recall.
No, you ask your Linux vendor to support Windows clients on your Linux server.
Windows clients are not broken because they don’t support some protocols. That is just plain stupid. Windows is Windows as I said.
At the moment, standards are not supported by Windows clients. Windows clients are therefore badly broken.
What standards? Oh, those used on Unices?
Well, Windows is not Unix. How many times do I have to repeat that?
Besides, given the fact that Windows is on 90% desktops, and has great deal of server markets, the question is: is Windows standard itself? Yes, it is.
Windows is DE FACTO standard. Live with it.
When Novell was major player Windows provided support for it, supported its protocols. When WordPerfect was major player, Word provided support for its file format. Linux should provide support for Windows protocols (and they sort of do, with Samba), not the other way around.
Forcing the other way is just EU’s excuse to slowly push Microsoft out of market.
“Well, Windows is not Unix. How many times do I have to repeat that? ”
You don’t have to repeat it at all, since this is what I have been saying all along.
Windows clients are not network clients at all, because they do not support any network standards. They are broken.
I am glad we can agree at least on that point.
Yeah, one more thing, I forgot:
yes, you can install and run SFU 3.5 on Windows 2000 or XP. For free.
Edited 2005-11-26 06:34
“you can install and run SFU 3.5 on Windows 2000 or XP. For free. ”
Where?
Does it support NFS, Postscript, CUPS netwrok printers, and other standard network services on a Windows client?
Does it support standard Kerebos validation and login?
If interoperability is available why is this not a part of the standard install?