Microsoft has struck a deal with Ready-to-Run Software to port their Passport server to Linux and UNIX. This would allow websites running Apache to utilize the single-sign-on feature that Passport offers.It’s just my opinion, but how often, like every other MS *NIX venture, do they do this: They cite in the PCWorld article “prompted by requests from large Passport customers that manage user authentication on Unix or Linux servers, Microsoft has worked with a company called Ready-to-Run Software, in order to port the software to non-Windows systems” and then 1-2 years later, after the single portet “version” suffers bitrot and is 2-3 generations behind, they pull the plug citing “lack of demand” for the *NIX version? It happened with IE and it happened with WindowsMedia Player. My take is that this is a bone that they’re throwing to the DOJ as part of the settlement, and is not a sincere effort to embrace alternative platforms.
But the key distinction, I think, is that the Passport stuff is a server technology, whereas IE is a client technology.
Whole lotta Unix servers out there in e-commerce land that will want to be able to hook up to Passport.
What’s more interesting, I think, is that they’re doing this at all, when I would think the resources would be better spent on making an NT Passport Server interoperate better in an heterogenous environment.
Drop 2K on the box, drop their Passport service on the box, plug it in deep behind the firwalls so that any system can easily interface to it. Paint the box black, shove it into a corner, and forget about it.
Then, write up some white papers “How to interface to the Passport Server using C/Perl/Python/Java” with sample code.
And, of course, the bestest thing they could have done was said “Oh, Passport runs on the CLR, so just download Mono at ….”.
Yeah. That’ll happen.
It seems that .NET, passport, etc. are another layer on top of the operating system. Think Java. It would seem to me that Microsoft would _want_ linux, mac, beos, and every other operating system under the sun to support their new initiative.
.NET will make the operating system that you are running irrevelant. It’s getting access to the _services_ that will matter, and Microsoft will control those!
“It seems that .NET, passport, etc. are another layer on top of the operating system. Think Java. It would seem to me that Microsoft would _want_ linux, mac, beos, and every other operating system under the sun to support their new initiative.”
That looks to be true at first-glance; however, MS has *NEVER* ceded *ANY* part of the market, server or desktop, to another technology. As I said above:
“My take is that this is a bone that they’re throwing to the DOJ as part of the settlement, and is not a sincere effort to embrace alternative platforms.”
I think that while MS may be doing this to spur early-adoption, in the long run they will *ENSURE* that Windows is the “best” platform on which to run Passport services.
Granted, that is just my opinion, but history is a good teacher (although one that is not often listened to) and MS has a reacord if behaving consistsantly.
Cheers,
Ken
Does anybody have a Passport account? What kind of information do you ask? Do you think one day Microsoft will require a person to have a Passport account to log into a Windows machine?
Just curious.
right now I just have my Name Email User name and password
“Drop 2K on the box, drop their Passport service on the box, plug it in deep behind the firwalls so that any system can easily interface to it. Paint the box black, shove it into a corner, and forget about it.”
I tried this with a Windows 2K server once, and found that I couldn’t “forget about it” — it required a lot of maintenance, more than I expected. When I moved to a RedHat-based server (e-smith distribution), I was able to set it and forget it (within reason).
I suspect that the demand for this (if there truly is one) is coming from those with a need or desire to support Passport, but not to support what they may view (rightly or wrongly) as a less-than-ideal server platform.
If you have a Hotmail account, you have a Passport account. Hotmail uses Passport authentication, which means that the act of creating a Hotmail account creates a Passport account.
How many high-end machines out there run Windows at the moment? Not many. A lot of the high-end stuff still run on Unix, and if MS is going to conquer the server space, it is going to take a little while to complete the process.
So this is just a business decision to suit the needs of the moment. Apache, for example, runs about 60% of websites, so it would be foolish to neglect that market. The goal of MS is to rule in on the server end as they do on the desktop. When and if MS conquers the server space, support for the non-conformers will be severed! Look at history!
I think that also why they ported C# development tools to FreeBSD, and the community took the bait…
Again marketing and PR are doing all the work and we even talk
about it..
Bas
“Does anybody have a Passport account? What kind of information do you ask? Do you think one day Microsoft will require a person to have a Passport account to log into a Windows machine?”
I created one to try out a couple of the online features of Windows XP, like online checkers, etc. I also created one at some point for that $40 Windows XP deal and another one out of boredom. All three are cancelled now, afaik.
They’re pretty good about taking measures to make sure that you are who you claim you are when you email customer service to cancel the account. There’re different verification info, like mother’s maiden name, employer, name of pet, etc., that can be used to verify you.
If you have a Yahoo! account, then I would describe a Passport account as similar to that – it gives you a single sign-on to all of MS’s online sites and services, which is convenient. In this regard, it’s just like Yahoo!; ie Yahoo! Messenger and Windows Messenger both use your login for each respective service to log in.
The difference from Yahoo! is this: you’re also able to access other, independent web sites that will accept your Passport login – kind of like how different merchants and banks all worth with Visa or Mastercard. For example, you can log into Ebay with Passport. However, I would never access my Ebay account with it.
From a security standpoint, your risk factor shoots up because now all it takes to break into your accounts is one login. You’re even more screwed if you store your credit card info with MS Wallet, a subset of Passport.
There is definitely room for competition in the single login market. There’s no reason why a site shouldn’t be able to offer Passport and Liberty Alliance when they get things rolling. And, of course, Yahoo! and AOL can bring their own clout to this market.
what’s the name? Sun ONE?
That’s Liberty Alliance.
This is funny.
If Microsoft doesn’t port this software to UNIX and Linux then they would be blamed for not openning things up, locking in customers to Windows and so on.
If Microsoft does port this software to Unix and Linux, then they would be accused of trying to lock customers to Passport, or something like that.
These guys will be blamed for anything.
I printed the “printer friendly” version,.. but the content wasn’t any FRIENDLIER:)
I don’t see why anyone would need a passport account other than to use msn messenger or hotmail. You don’t need one to play the Internet games with XP and the concept really isn’t that secure. I don’t go to any of the sites that MS runs and requires passport because I am one that likes to be secure. Passport does not offer that security.
Microsoft, IBM and Verisign are working on a SOAP “extension” or, as they see it, a layer above SOAP (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn… for an introduction).
The first layer, the bottom layer, called Web Service Security adds the functionality of signing/encrypting/authenticating
parts of SOAP-messages. Microsoft is implementing this in a
product code named TrustBridge which supposedly interfaces well with (surprise) Active Directory (well, the good news is kerberos support). From what various documents I’ve found say that the next version of passport.Net (due 2003) will support WS-Security (and above layers).
What gives? There is an IBM-implementation in Java that already does this. Are the future plans for passport.Net put on ICE? Is that why they’re developing a passport port?
I don’t see why anyone would need a passport account other than to use msn messenger or hotmail. You don’t need one to play the Internet games with XP and the concept really isn’t that secure. I don’t go to any of the sites that MS runs and requires passport because I am one that likes to be secure. Passport does not offer that security.
It is obvious that you made this up about the security. If you are ever using any web site, if you are using yahoo like sites, that means that Passport is at least as secure as those sites, so it is totally nonesense to say that passport is not secure.
The only problem with Microsoft’s passport is how much support do they get from the online community. Passport is a useful tool, it is way ahead of liberty alliance technically. Also a user can have a better control on which web site should have his/her information or not.
Solaris, for example, keeped on pushing Netscape and downplaying IE’s existance. There is a huge lack of demand for Microsoft consumer apps on Unix, but this is a server app, not consumer one. Who knows? It might succeed.
History is a bad teacher in this case, Ken. This, to my knowlegde, is the first time Microsoft have make deals to port its server software to UNIX. Not client software.
Combined together, unix takes far more market place in the webserver enviroment than Windows NT would ever have. Plus, the unix/Linux market share is growing rapidly, while Windows’ shrinking. It would be stupid for Microsoft to pitch the success of .NET on a OS the market doesn’t use.
It seems to me that if M$ *don’t* port Passport to Unix/Linux then it will saturate the market very quickly. Liberty would then take the same market on Unix *and* will be available on Windows as well. Result dispite having a lead Passport dies and Windows/IIS starts to be locked out of a section of the market.
Alternatively, if they *do* port it they have the advantage of being available first, and then can then cross sell Windows/IIS (by adding some killer feature on the Windows version).
It’s just business.
The only problem with Microsoft’s passport is how much support do they get from the online community. Passport is a useful tool, it is way ahead of liberty alliance technically. Also a user can have a better control on which web site should have his/her information or not.
From what I have read about the behind part about Liberty Alliance and Passport is that LA is much more technically advance Passport, in concept. I have no idea about in practice, after all, there is no running proof that LA is good in real life.
But does this matter? Nope. What matters is the marketing behind it. Think Beta vs. VHS. Microsoft has offered to join LA if it has some say into what goes in (and out), plus it would no longer function as a Microsoft bashing club.
As for security, I have to say, it isn’t that impresive. But in the past one year, they made serious strides in terms of security, I doubt within 5 years it would be a major problem. But rememeber, there is no such thing as perfect security. If Passport holds all information from various sites, it would be a hacker target. Even if they have the best security in the world, they would still pose a threat. Which is one of the many reasons why I prefer Liberty alliance.