Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases CIFS Docs -- Free Ball & Chain
juan large moose writes: "Microsoft has released documentation on the CIFS protocol suite, but there may be a catch.
The license says that the documentation is available for review, but no one may implement the described technology without signing a 'royalty-free' license agreement. Some reviewers are reporting that the document provides less information than the earlier IETF DRAFT CIFS specification, and may in fact be a cleaned-up version of an outdated Storage Network Industry Association CIFS Document. These other documents do not have the restrictive license."
does this mean that samba will do a better job of SMB now?
Why all this wailing and pissing about MS not providing free and unfuckingfettered access to their shit? Here's the deal, and I will be as fucking concise and clear about this as possible: If CIFS doesn't give you a stiffy, then use something else. If the licensing agreement makes you clench your fist and scream "mothafucka mothafucka mothafucka mothafucka" then don't use it. Quite simple. I'm no MBA. I didn't write any books that got reviewed on slashdot, but I will tell you this: Microsoft doesn't want people competing against them with their own products.
If I give a bum a roll of pennies, and he clenches his fist and socks me in the junk destroying my ability to bring profane motherfucking babies into the world, I'll be upset, to say the least.
But think about this small cornnut studded turd of wisdom: their Common fucking file system won't be too fucking common if developers don't use it.
1) What reviewers? We've got links to the other versions of the docs, but no links to anybody who has compared them. Any chance of reading what they have to say?
2) I d/l'ed the M'soft document, and although it refers to the license, I don't see the actual thing that I would be expected to sign and return. Am I missing it, or has Microsoft stashed it somewhere else?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
I've got to say, flamebait or not, this has got to be the funniest comment that is also on topic I've yet to see on Slashdot.
Well (if somewhat profanely) said.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
This is just the same crappy CIFS documentation that microsoft has been recycling since the mid 90's in yet another doc format.
The facts are that without the DCE/RPC portion of the spec, you've got to get your reverse engineering hat on.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Is that you Ozzy?
It has to be Lars :)
Who is lars? And who is ozzy?
Something must be wrong with the world today. This comment is profane, ignorant, and has very little actual content. Yet, some moderators, in their wisdom have made this the highest rated comment.
To address the actual points made here:
Microsoft doesn't want people competing against them with their own products.
their Common fucking file system won't be too fucking common if developers don't use it.
These points are obvious - no one wants people to compete with them. But the fact that the M$ has a monopoly in the desktop OS and to some extent in the server OS markets means that they have to play by different rules.
For a smaller company or a larger one that has competitors in the same market (ie IBM vs Oracle), this behaviour is acceptable. For M$, it isn't
And yes, the CIFS will be common as long even if developers don't use it as long as M$ can force this crap down everyone's throats and no one complains or tries to stop them
That's why it's 'funny' not 'insightful' you sloppy bitch.
...someone like Jeremy Allison to describe the practicalities, not only of the licensing terms, but also the accuracy and the completeness of this specification document.
I have to wonder, too, just how relevent the information is from the standpoint of timeliness.
Is this something that is practically out of the bag anyway and therefore of little effective monetary value to Microsoft at this time?
It's almost certainly of some political value for them to release an interface specification of any kind at this point in time, considering the stakes at risk at the outcome of their current trials and settlement agreement.
Someone from the Samba team, someone that attempts to reverse engineer things like SMB, Active Directory and NTFS would have a much better insight into the meaning of this than most people.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
SMB/CIFS wasn't planned as much as serially kludged from DOS/LanMan on through Win2k. MS looks back hopefully on this and re-writes a specification document which does not conform to real behavior 'on the wire'. This was the assertion of Jeremy Allison at an expo event in San Francisco, coinciding with the debut release of Windows 2000.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Is this kind of thing even legal? I mean, how can they enforce such a stupid license? If they want to distribute information, how can they tell us how to use that information?
(Note: I have not read the article.)
License: By reading this comment you agree to shoot yourself in the head. Twice.
Am I missing something? The page says it's this file system that will work regardless of the underlying operating system, and yet, one of the "system requirements" is a certain operating system, nevermind WHAT operating system...
Shouldn't it be operating system independent?
Microsoft has released source code to their .NET CLI for Windows XP and FreeBSD. It has been released under their shared source license. Article and download available here.
I am a (java)developer, so this is a huge deal to me. I submitted it to slashdot yesterday and it was rejected. It is posted over on kuro5shin somewhere. I would think this would be VERY helpful for the mono team.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
Is this kind of thing even legal? I mean, how can they enforce such a stupid license? If they want to distribute information, how can they tell us how to use that information?
Say hello to the United States Patent Office. Microsoft owns defensive patents on many software technologies but has a history of licensing many of them royalty-free to all comers. (Heck, even the W3C allows patented technologies into its standards, as long as the patents are licensed royalty-free.)
Note: I have not read the article.
Figures, since the article is not in a standard format (it's a compressed Windows help file in a self-extracting WinZip archive). To access this Windows help file without agreeing to the self-extractor's license, simply use any popular unzip tool. HEY MICRO$OFT, I'M WEARING A "DMCA ME" SIGN!
Will I retire or break 10K?
The page says it's this file system that will work regardless of the underlying operating system, and yet, one of the "system requirements" is a certain operating system, nevermind WHAT operating system...
The file system that the document describes will work on any OS, but the document itself is a compressed Windows Help file inside a zip file.
Will I retire or break 10K?
According to this post on Samba Technical, the Storage Network Industry Association will soon release version 1.0 of their SMB/CIFS documentation. Version 0.9 has been available for some time.
The SNIA doc was based on the earlier Leach/Naik IETF draft, but was updated based on input from many sources, including IBM, HP, the jCIFS Team, Microsoft, NetApp, the Samba Team, and others. The new SNIA doc does not have the licensing restrictions of the Microsoft release.
-- JLM
And it won't make any difference whether developers use CIFS or not--the point is that CIFS is on Microsoft clients, and it's pretty much the only file network system Microsoft really supports.
CIFS is also not a "Microsoft product", in the sense of originating with Microsoft: its roots go back to other companies.
Finally, it seems to me you have some "issues".