Slashdot Mirror
MS getting rid of SAMBA?
BenRussoUSA writes "In this ZDNet story . Brian Behlendorf of Apache, Jeremy Allison of SAMBA, Miguel de Icaza of Ximian and now MONO and Eric Allman of Sendmail are all quoted in a story regarding a nasty rumor. Microsoft may be planning to include a Microsoft patented technology at a crucial interoperability point in .NET and maybe the next version of CIFS. Could this spell the end of SAMBA?"
I doubt they care about anyone else's problems with intergration. Anything that can force people to use NT. They're solely in it for the money, not for more altruistic reasons. If your running Netware they'll probably not help, just send you a bunch of brocshures on the total cost of ownership and some such non-sense. They won't ignore, just keep telling you the perfectly good Netware or Unix server is broken. They're not going to be happy until everyone is dependant on their OS, and then they can raise the prices at will. It's really like crack. The first few are free, and then you can afford the 3rd and 4th, but by the 5th time its so expensive you've got to turn to stealing. When you think Microsoft, think crack dealer.
I think it's possible that the time when MS could "lock up" SMB/CIFS via patents may have passed. Samba is used by too many "mainstream" IT sites to provide Unix/Windows integration - sites that have already spent huge sums of money trying to port their business critical applications to Windows and failed.
If they actually tried to do this, the effect would be akin to the results if they tried to change MSIE to break on Apache servers (to create pressure to switch to IIS). Even before Code Red, very few sites would switch from Apache to IIS. Making the browser break on Apache would break so many sites that it would not force servers to switch to IIS, it would force users to switch from MSIE.
Likewise, if some future version of Windows breaks Samba, IT managers would simply insist on the old versions of Windows until they found a workaround, e.g., third-party SMB drivers for the "improved" Windows on new systems. Or they would investigate whether it's cheaper, and less risky, to convert every single workstation to Linux than to try, again, to port their key application to run on Windows. Combined with the other major headaches MS is trying to force down IT's staff (e.g., some early reports that the "new and improved" licenses sometimes go *poof* without warning, but it can take days to arrange a replacement. If that happens at the wrong moment, a company could lose a contract or a court case, costing millions of dollars. Are you willing to bet your company - and your personal savings - that Windows will never barf on you?) and this could be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.
If I had to guess what's happening, MS is floating a trial balloon. They won't pay attention to us, but if InfoWorld starts reporting on the rumors and has some Fortune 500 IT managers saying they'll seriously evaluate alternatives if Samba is locked out of a latter-day CIFS, we'll never hear of this idea again.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The Samba team should work on their own "variant" of samba and develop drivers to all systems including MS. I mean, instead of reverse-engineering the PDC protocol, develop your own Open Source implementation of it including a client for MS OS's.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Usually MS is bending over backwards wrt. enabling you to run old programs etc. Would they really cut all 95/98/NT/ME clients off? .au would let them patent software
When NT started using encrypted password, there was a registry tweak, which enabled Samba to function.
A real danger seems like it would be MS starting to enforce their patents. It even looks like
Not A Good thing, since much of the Samba development takes place in Australia.
/Styx
when they pry it from my /etc/init.d/cold/dead/fingers
Really, what can they do? ECMA rules say they have to licence is "non prejudiciously", and usually that means a percentage of revenues, not a flat fee. So if Jeremy Allison has to send them 20% of whatever he charges for SAMBA, they'll have to accept that.
Yes, the nick is flamebait
Leaving SMB would mean W95/98/ME and even NT4.0/5.0 would not be able to share files with the newer MS OSes. As long as these old Microsoft OS can communicate with the next MS OS, so will Samba. I doubt MS would break file sharing between NT4.0/5.0 and future OSes.
They threw out NTLM, in came Kerberos
They threw out WINS, in came DDNS
I wouldn't worry too much yet...
How long did it take them to pay attention to their own customers and get rid of clippy? Four years? How long did it take them to write an SMTP server that allows for conditional relaying like everyone else instead of all open or all closed relaying? Oh wait; they haven't done that yet.
This is closer to an admittance by Microsoft that other systems exist, and they are unwelcome interlopers in an M$-centric network. Leaving the old LAN Manager authentication in, using the same file sharing technology for years, M$ basically didn't see the need to change anything because, after all, no one was using anything but M$ products, right?
So with a step like this, M$ is saying "We know you're not using our products everywhere, so we're going to try to come up with another way to make you pay for our lousy tech".
So now we need a robust file sharing system that works like SMB/NFS/etc from a web browser - cross platform joyousness for the client, apache on whateveryouwant for the server....
--mandi
This is exactly the sort of thing the remedy sought by the Justice Department should address. MS should be required to open up all APIs and document formats.
See, there's the problem... "a few other tech's". "few" and "tech's" being the key words. Microsoft knows that only the technically-oriented people are going to care at all, most of those probably won't be able to switch from Windows, and the ones that do will eventually find themselves having to switch back because they can't interoperate with something they need to. Don't just look at this one thing that Microsoft does, keep in mind that they're going to keep doing things like this. Sure, today it's just Samba you can't use without paying royalties, but sooner or later more things will be embraced and extended, and the people who could afford to switch today won't be able to stay away forever. And those that have to switch back make terrific case studies of how Linux and any other alternate technology is inadequate, don't they?
No, I didn't read the goddamned article.
Considering that to really wipe out samba, microsoft would have to destroy interoperability with previous windows versions... I think this article is just more zdnet sensationalist journalism.
> Samba is the best if not only solution for interconnectivity between MS networking protocols and Unix ... but yet MS intends to cut this off.
From Micorsoft's perspective, the "best interconnectivity" is "no interconnectivity".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I doubt microsoft can ignore all these systems. People will not easily dump their workstations for NT...
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Somebody should whack our PHBs and government types in the head and inform them that open standards and interoperabilty are good things -- you could make an argument for them being in the best interests of society at large.
Maybe the next time the gov't drags them into court, they need to force them to accept and support open, documented, un-M$-ified standards for key technologies. Like file formats, network protocols, etc, etc.
For the life of me, I can't understand why any (non-secret) government agencies use any black-box software. Why don't librarians, historians and like people raise the alarm? Why is this even a geek issue?!!
This whould allow Microsoft to "innovate" as much as they want but allow competition by allowing others to freely clone their products & technologies.
Of course MS would complain "Waaah they are taking away our property and giving it to others!". They would be right in a way, but it's not like they they took away Bill's wonderful home or something.
I would be /very/ surprised to see Microsoft implement a new feature into CIFS which when reverse-engineered by SAMBA (legal under DMCA for interoperability issues) would require them to pay a patent license.
.NET which is entirely possible. We must remember though that the whole world is not kept under US law (though more and more of it has our laws thanks to our friends at WIPO...) Either way, Samba has a pretty stable future despite the minor roadblocks Microsoft throws up.
The reason this would be hard to stomach is that Microsoft has major customers including banks and other data farms which use Samba across their worldwide networks. Microsoft might be a major behometh and may attempt to stifle Project Mono but I doubt it would be throught the form of changing CIFS (the new version of SMB for those who don't know).
Microsoft is a bully and we will always have things to overcome however they still answer to some people, namely their major customers and when they bark orders, Microsoft listens.
Plus, the story doesn't really even talk about Microsoft changing CIFS, it talks about possible patents in
-davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
Billy Boy wants total world control. He's not going to give up any segment of the market, not even elevator controllers running DOS3. Because he knows that won't or can't upgrade and will migrate to other non-MS solutions if he doesn't maintain some support for such markets. That "upgrade or get screwed" shit only applies to the desktop user. The business world is a different beast entirely. And you'll never see the lates MS stuff in any mission critical systems. Such systems are still running DOS because it's known to be stable or has all bugs fully known and coded to be avoided. What is known RIGHT NOW about all existing instabilities in Whistler? Fucking nothing.
The article talks about patents, and how if Microsoft were to integrate some form of patented technology into their authentication system it may require Samba to license it.
.Net and Mono.
It's just a general discussion about patents and how they might impact an Open Source project. They use Samba as an example, but are primarily referring to
Hey Mr. Taco... Read the article next time before posting a comment about it.
Allison said he inadvertently learned of a patent from "a high Microsoft official"
I don't know what MS has been smoking lately, but they've obviously smoked it all.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
As you know, the internet runs on connections. The crypt is a wonderful idea other than the fact that any country that hosts it will be put under enourmous pressure by other nations to kill it or bring themselves to the same standards as other nations. Even an oil rig in the middle of international waters needs a feed out, and what's it going to do when the land line is cut by the country whose traffic it passes through? At this point your best bet would be to park a rig off of China; they have enough clout and obstinance to give WIPO/UN/US the finger for years to come.
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
US law even apparently applies to Russian soil. Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov. The US gov't believes its law applies worldwide. And Russia isn't screaming blooddy murder about it! (Why not?!)
No one is safe, unless perhaps they decide to NEVER visit the US ever again. Even that might not be enough, just look at Manuel Noriega. Kidnapped by the US in a miltary raid and imprisoned in a US jail.
And the US would be very likely to bomb any rig out in international waters. We'd justify its destruction and the killing of its workers by saying we were protecting the US economy from economic terrorism and all our sheep/citizens will bleat their approval. And with it having been in international waters, we wouldn't be in trouble with any other country for violating its sovereignty.
Not that international law has ever (in practice) ever applied to the US ... just look at how many treaties we violate.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
why oh why do people host their projects in the US ?
why not put it in international waters and work on it from wherever you want ?
this goes back to cryptonomicon CAVE idea
more and more things like this are going to happen we should simply wake up and put them out of reach of poloitical ideas and companys
what are the problems with this approach ?
reagrds
john jones
The patent covers only the encryption procedures for how a user password is changed, but as part of the transfer protocol, it is a potential dependency for all developers who have to mimic the Windows file system and seek to interoperate with it. For example, successful interoperation with Samba might make the Samba project subject to Microsoft demands for patent licenses and royalties.
Which means MOSX 10.1 will not be able to use the password encryption procedures without MS permission. This could be DCMA test if the SAMBA team decides to go ahead with the implementation of the password encryption. Of course, a black box shouldn't be patentable... I mean, if the code produces the right output with a different algorithm, then it should be kosher, (or parve, I'm bad with analogies).
Andrew
Then again, it's their technology, they can do whatever they want. Heck, Linus changes the public interface to the kernel between dot releases (then again, he documents the changes). At least MS changes stuff in major releases.
Besides, they can't make too radical changes, because people will still be connecting WinNT, Win2K to their WinXP network (if nothing else).
So Samba driven systems might no longer be a PDC, but it should still work as clients.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Did anyone *not* see this coming?
karma capped
Shutting out SaMBa is easy. The trick is not to shut out older MS SMB clients like, say, LanMan, Windows 3.11, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, 4.0 and Win2k in the process. If they pursue this too rigorously, they risk alienating customers because the new software isn't backwards compatible. Why do you think they're still putting DOS compatability in their new OSes even though the last MS-DOS release was almost a decade ago?
No they don't and won't. By not supporting obsolete versions of Microsoft products they force their customers to upgrade thereby generating revenues. Microsoft absolutely cares not a whit for problems of people running Windows 3.x or DOS
All those existing W95/98/MT/NT4/W2K installations already out there are not making them any more new revenue, in fact they now consider the entire installed product base to be a liability against future sales. They really do want to completely re-invent the way everything is done, and require everyone to re-buy everything all over again if the users want to "stay compatible" with their current product line (of the future). They are naiively thinking that all their current customers will indeed go running off the cliff like lemmings and buy the new stuff all over again. They're dreaming.
They are not dumb, they realize that. But they don't like it either, since it takes away the control over the market they have got used to with their desktop monopoly.
I still remember very lively a talk by the MS net boss at the 3rd WWW conference, back in 1995. There we (the audience) got told that this whole Internet thing as it has been built up to then is quite nice, but that it is time to stop playing in that children sandbox and to start creating something that's proper for business. They have been working toward that goal eversince.
You realize that your situation is very rare, don't you? In almost all companies, buying decisions are made by admin and sales, and not by the tech guys. That's the reason why there are so many Windows servers, after all.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]