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?"
Among the unexpected features Mac OS X 10.1 will include: A built-in SMB client. I wonder what effect that had on MS's decision.
AFAIK, you can't patent software in Australia, where Samba is developped. So, even if there were such a (US) patent, it would not stop Samba.
Once the Samba Team did the work and built a port of the new protocol, they would never be able to visit the US, or they would be arrested by the Microsoft Division of the FBI.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
> samba still cannot serve the "user list" to
:-) :-).
> windows 9x machines for USER level sharing.
Finally fixed in Samba 2.2.1a. I'm sure you'll now upgrade...
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Next MS will get rid of TCP/IP and replace it with some new proprietart patented protocol. Real TCP/IP will only be made available as a gateway network device on NT Server. i.e., your ISP must purchase the expen$ive converter. While you puny windows peons must use the MS protocol, which will no doubt made downloadable as an addon for 95/98/ME/etc.
Microsoft must be overjoyed that Mac OS X.1 and Linux and Unix all have popular SMB clients. Woo hoo! Desktops of all kinds are locking in the value of having a nice Microsoft-controlled backoffice.
It's the servers of SMB which are the thorn in Microsoft's side. A decent Samba server runs on Linux just fine, which robs Microsoft of all that wonderful lock-in. A Microsoft backoffice solution can be replaced with a drop-in equivalent, and not one desktop user even notices the difference (except there's fewer i.t. emails out to the organization about downtime).
Every time a fully functional drop-in replacement is possible, Microsoft will attempt to change the game to break that possibility. Desktops are hard to replace fully, because every single user has to make a very personal commitment (either by paycheck or choice) to learn all the little differences. Servers are easy to replace without much hardship, and Microsoft knows this. Hence, .net and kerberos tweaks and other closed or extended standards.
[
It won't work. Samba requires working seteuid() calls, and full POSIX locking functionality, which is not possible to emulate in a Win32 program (although probably possible in a native NT API program, via hidden calls - you know, the ones Microsoft claim don't exist :-).
That's why Microsoft's "Services for UNIX" product must have a kernel component - Win32 locking is unbearably primitive compared to POSIX locking. We can emulate Win32 locking semantics on top of POSIX, but it's not possible to do this the other way around.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
So if they're patenting this, does this mean that people either pay or risk the Wrath of Redmond for violating the DMCA by not paying?
Wow. Who'd have guessed that it'd be game, set, match already?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I'm thinking that this could backfire against Microsoft, at least in the short term.
I've read that when Microsoft has guys that help customers deploy Microsoft solutions, they use Samba if they need to integrate with a Unix network.
If Samba didn't exist, Microsoft would have lost the sale to that customer, because they'd have to either go whole-hog with Microsoft, or nothing at all. Chances are, most would stick with nothing unless their Unix boxes were too old.
Also, alot of non-Microsoft systems out there will be using Samba to server files to the Microsoft workstations. If the version of Windows after XP (Blackcomb?) didn't support SMB, I doubt the IT department would want to roll it out right away.
Not to mention that Microsoft would be forcefully obsoleting their own user base. Thats not something they are known to do willfully, witness the sufferings of people dealing with Win9x.
If Microsoft tried to do this, I expect that it would be a slow and gradual process, similar to the phasing out of WINS in favor of DNS with Windows 2000.
WHY do we have to use Microsoft's file server software at all? Why not just write a secure, open source NT/2000 service that can share directories? This can be accessed by a secure, open source client that sits on a NT/2000/9x/Linux/UNIX machine. This (sort of) was done with SSH. There are 3rd party solutions for NNTP, SMTP, POP, IMAP, HTTP, etc. Why not file sharing?
From reading the article I understand that there is the potential for Samba or any other open source app that realies on CIFS to have to mimic a function that happens when a user changes their password (I am asuming that this is part of MS/CHAP). The problem being that MS might hold a patent on something, that possibly would have to be implimented by said open source app and as a result MS could charge some sort of licencing fee. Maybe
What a friggin joke! The author comes up with a scenario which is has no factual basis, decides it could be a bad thing and then get various people in the community to provide quotes that agree with him.
This is FUD, a pure and perfect example of FUD. ZDnet is getting worse evey year.
As with all large companies Microsoft files lots of ridiculous patents. They do it for the same reason mine does, so that if they are sued by another company thay have something for swapsies.
It would probably not be a good thing for Microsoft if their customers could not attach Linux file systems easily. SAMBA is simply collateral damage in the high stakes game between EMC and Microsoft. EMC servers are very expensive and Microsoft would love to play bigger on that turf.
The bigger problem is that in the crackpot US PTO scheme you never know if a patent has been applied for on something until the government awards a 20 year monopoly in practicing it. The rules have been improved, i.e. made less open to corrupt abuse but they are still an extortionists charter.
I can't remember the last time Microsoft was the plaintif in a Patent lawsuit. They have been the victim of many Patent Trolls.
It would be an idiotic strategy for Microsoft to try to use patents to make .NET proprietary. But then again the tax cut for the ultra-rich and breaking the ABM treaty to build a 21st century Maginot line are crackpot ideas.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I could actually see this working both ways, both against and for Microsoft. Sure, some people would choose to use an NT server rather than have extra hassle configuring ways around this, this would obviuosly benefit Microsoft through revenue and others. However, some people/companies would choose to dump Windows altogether and go with a much more free environment, such as a native network one like Linux or similar. I know I would go to Linux, and I'm sure a few other tech's would seriously consider the alternatives to a completely Windows environment, especially when there are other free or cheaper alternatives available.
Right now, Linux probably is not ready for Desktop use even in companies. The fact that companies, unlike home users, have dedicated staff to administer machines means the corporate Linux desktop will be ready before the general desktop market, but I don't think it's quite there regardless.
However, Windows is developed by a corporation. Corporations must look out for their own interest above any other concern. This means that the customer will NEVER be #1, no matter how many marketspeak ad compaigns are waged. Linux, however, is developed by community spirit. Although originally targeted towards the developer community it has gained enough appeal that many are working seriously on making it an excellent system for a general community.
This kind of thinking makes it a much more attractive platform for companies -- how much more reliable is a system where the developers are working for you rather than for themselves?
As Linux matures I have no doubt that IT managers will finally be weened off the MS-mentality and adopt a platform that won't try to screw them over to maximize the platform's parent's profits.
He said once that "SMB sucks. SMB really really sucks" (slightly paraphrased). And also that wrote samba as a compatibility thing. And that he expected it to be obsolete/not needed anymore, because hopefully people would use another (read: better) distributed network filesystem protocol. I don't know if .NET will be any better, but I doubt it.
This article is more then just a bunch of wining about samba. So what, they make a new technology and render the smb protocol useless. I don't hear too many people wining about how no one uses gopher much anymore...
...
.NET alternative for Linux because MS has no intention of doing this on their own. Now MS says you can do all the work into implementing our system, with all of it's problems and complexities, and we'll get paid for it.
.NET, DO IT YOURSELF!!! I mean, can they really expect people to pay to use this? I don't know how Ximian can go along with this one.
The point is that we can always create a free version of whatever MS makes. For smb protocol we created samba. Samba is for interconnectivity with windows; not too many people use it for Unix sharing (usually use NFS).
If it goes away, fine. We'll make Omni-ba that'll work with the new protocol for filesharing.
BUT. The real problem I see here is
Open-source critics of Microsoft said the company would have the opportunity to strangle an open-source project by demanding a licensing fee and royalty payments each time an open-source version of its patent was implemented.
The whole point of Mono is to be able to have a free
Does anyone else see the problem here. MS if you want to get paid for a Linux/Unix version of
I would like to see the President say a disparaging remark about China and then go visit them only to get locked up in a standing-room only cell for 2 years. Maybe then the government will think twice about this Dimitry case.