Slashdot Mirror
Passport for Linux On the Way
mrsam writes "PCWorld reports that
Microsoft comissioned
Ready-to-Run Software,
a small software vendor,
to port the Passport server software
to Solaris, Red Hat Linux, AIX, and HPUX. Oh, joy."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Why did MS comissioned a small company to port Passport server software?
I'm not an expert in corporate tactics but could it be that they're already forseeing the flop of those ports and rather ask a small company to have the trouble, the (possible) losses, etc... ?
-- Would it be acceptable to just put my name on my sig?
that list of *NIX platforms already has an answer to passport - liberty. i may have my negative opinions about IBM and Sun at times, and don't get me started about RH, but i place a lot more faith in their stability and security, and i know they'll answer answer the phone when we have a security issue that has to be fixed 30 minutes ago. i don't feel comfortable ever saying that about Microsoft.
when it rains, it gets real soggy. when it pours, i'm under the tap just _waiting_ for the joy
The fact that Passpoer is being ported to linux means nothing, really. For a system to exist people have ot use it. The base of linux users who actually register for passport (especially those who use linux because it isn't MS) will be very small. The people who use linux are not idiots. They read thier EULA's, they know what rights MS gives itself with the passport system. Although it is nice that mainstream software is being ported to linux.
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
Interesting how such a limited platform list is provided for servers. What about Mandrake, SuSE, et. al.? With canned commercial support, what of potential customers that want to use a different HTTP server, different patches, different languages/tools, etc.?
You also note that there is no mention of support for developing client software under the *nix platforms. It's yet another way to lock in the desktop as Microsoft-only, much as many of their "servers" already do.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
For instance, the unix utils (a2ps to top) are included in a distribution that costs $399.
Here is a blurb from their site:
Ready-to-Run provides you with software ready-to-run immediately for much less than what you would pay to acquire the same software in non-executable source form from a bulletin board. And only for a fraction of what you would pay for most of the commercial software available!
So, are they charging for service (giving us the freedom to redistribute?) Anyone knows the answers? Would M$FT's system be really free (as in speech?) S
It just goes to show, if you cannot beat them; blur, subvert, entagle, go to bed with, and later on take a knife to their neck. This is one good way to get their roots into an otherwise concreate group who seem to stand firmly on open source. Heck, making Internet Explorer free (as in cost) utterly destroyed Netscape in the end, and now free (as in freedom) software is starting to destroy Microsoft. Kinda Ironic huh? Well it won't be so easy on this side of the camp for them to subvert. We can see it coming, and if Microsoft is so anti Finux, then why have a company contribute to that very same agenda they are scared of? Is this an "embrace, and exploite" method we have not seen before? Who knows, maybee MS will write their own Finux distro in the end! har... har..
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
However, amidst the dust and noise of the current storm of PR, spin, ads, and FUD, they are also dropping support for several key products like NT 4, Exchange 5.5 and Win2000 pro now and in the near future. At least when Cisco is hurting, their sales team treats for lunch. Or when McDonalds jacks up the price of a coke, they run a sale on the burgers.
Microsoft appears to have been circling the ol' financial drain for some time, with shaky bookkeeping, shrinking markets, and admissions that their products cannot compete on technical merits. Perhaps this last week's media blitz is a sign that the execs have offloaded enough of their stock options for us to hear that last *glunk* and see MSFT along side EOG.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I totally agree with you there. If i have a centralised account on one company and they mess up all my accounts is screwed. Dont put all your eggs in one basket. I would much rather have an application that held all my accounts in it encryptet on the HD like in Mozilla. Then they have to break into my computer to get them. If they do that no Passport or liberty in the world will save me anyway since they can look at what i type and then logon by themselves with my account.
To centralise all passwords is just plain stupid and as i pointed out above it can be solved in better ways. A smartcard with all your accounts that you use with a single password or something.
HTTP/1.1 400
I know they exist, I installed them on day 1.
The updates fell out of step with the IIS versions.
And so many things didn't work compared to the IIS version that we dropped the whole 'we host frontpage' idea because it was too much time in support explaining the differences to frontpage users who, quite reasonably, just wanted it to work like it says in the instructions.
And then you still have "why don't my database controls work" to contend with.
fp on Unix was a poisoned chalice as far as we were concerned.
Poison on IIS too but that's another story!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Wow, what an over hypothesized, under-thought, convoluted conspiracy you have there.
How about a simpler solution? Try this:
Microsoft, knowing that IIS isn't anywhere near as accepted as Apache for web serving has decided that porting Passport to the OSes that run the majority of web servers would help with adoption rates for the technology.
or, possibly:
Companies that want to use Passport have told Microsoft that they are unwilling to switch from their Unix based web servers to Win2K Server w/IIS just to be able to use Passport. Microsoft has listened and has decided to port Passport to various Unices so that it will be accepted.
There is an article by Charles C. Mann in the September issue of The Atlantic Montly about Bruce Schneier which argues against security systems which fail poorly. Security systems that bring down the entire system when the break are a bad idea. In the case of centralized security, if the system breaking means that an intruder can compromise the data of every user than it is a bad design. Security should be modularized so that one intruder may be able to limit your access but not read your files for example. Authentication should be separate from encryption, etc.
True management can be simplified by haveing centralized servers, and this may improve security slightly, but what use is centralized monitoring if a single intruder can take down the entire system with one compromise.
Why did Microsoft _pay_ a company to port Passport to _some_ operating systems?
:
They'd better
- Release the source code and the protocol description, so that anyone can freely create Passport compatible software for every operating system.
- Keep their cash for marketing, so that people understand what Passport could bring.
{{.sig}}
They could have simply released the specs for passport without any NDA or other stings attached.
If anyone wanted passport on apache they coulde easily implement it themselves as OpenSource.
What we are getting is a closed source product. We can't fix any fault's (security or other), we can't examine the code to make sure it's secure and we can't trust a fix to be available if it is
Now tell us why we should be happy
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
I've been attending M$ seminars for several years now, and from what they themselves say, you're dead-on. They really do want to move to a purely subscription model.
Subscription-based *software* won't cut it, tho -- because the user CAN escape that, so long as there is some way to port their data elsewhere. But making *access* to your data a subscription feature -- THAT will lock people in for all time, unless they decide they can do without any data already committed to the system. And what's locked in can be charged on a regular basis (either per timespan or per-use, or both).
M$ understands this perfectly, and is working to achieve it.
"Once you pay the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." -- British proverb (ca. 600 A.D.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'm an ex Microsoft IIS/SiteServer/FPSE engineer and used to train Microsoft staff on these products. While FPSE on Unix has a fairly unusual implementation, they can easily be configured to work on Apache or IIS in most situations. I personally handled over 7,000 calls on FPSE alone and was unable to resolve four of them. If the product was truly broken, I wouldn't have had such results. RTR does a good job (they port FPSE to all desired platforms). I personally think that *AssPort on unix is good because you can configure systems to report false imformation easily and I don't think Microsoft has the capacity to handle the implementation and security required. IF they put passport on a unix box, it will likely blow up which will be reported to the world. They may be able to handle initial development but if you ever have a serious issue, you will likely be directed to RTR heh. For the same reason SharePoint on Unix was dropped after over a year of development, Microsoft is likely not equipped to handle the support and problem resolution needed to keep this product alive.
Much as I would like to believe this, I haven't seen any public signs that they are hurting. Could this be true? The decision in India has to be a big blow to them, I wonder just how bad the international numbers are at this point. I know they are always trying to spread out their income and losses, but if things really are bad, at some point they will have to take a loss. Any predictions on when this might happen?
What is EOG?
> Remember, MS is about one and only one thing,
> maximizing the profit of the shareholders. PERIOD.
>
Whoa whoa whoa there cheif! I hate to point this out, but you're wrong. Seriously. I know we all have the little capitialist mantra in our heads about profit. However, MS has constantly and routinely screwed their shareholders out of divedens they rightly deserve. The majority stock holders aren't interested in giving anything back and sharing their gains with the rest. Instead, any and all profit goes to continue lining their 40 billion dollar treasure chest. At this point, MS could buy and sell the world if they'd like - hell, they could stop wars, yet they're to frugal to give a penny back to their investors. And this is the REAL reason why MS will be in the very bottom of hell -- Malice toward benifactors.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you