Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Slap at Samba
Rollie Hawk writes "Microsoft's latest attempt to reconcile with the European Commission's antitrust rulings against the company may result in another victim. It seems their offer, if accepted, will strike a considerable blow at a leading competitor in the realm of file and printer sharing.
The popular open source suite Samba stands to be the recipient of a backhanded slap from Redmond if the offer stands and the European branch of the Free Software Foundation is taking it personally. Though Microsoft is offering to make some information regarding interoperability available to competitors, it's only under the condition that implementations are not open source. According to FSFE president Georg Greve, "the proposal specifically precludes the information from being used in a free software implementation, such as the Samba workgroup server software."
How is Samba being specifically targeted? Greve argues this is because "Samba is the only remaining major competitor of Microsoft in this market.""
You have to admire Microsoft's ability to turn what seems to be a damaging situation into something that might actually benefit them!
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
As usual, Microsoft turns stinging defeat into a brilliant victory. I have but one question, however, how much of all of this does MS in fact actually own? I mean, all the base LANServer stuff was jointly developed with IBM, and I'm sure IBM wouldn't be too happy with MS trying to shut Samba down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sure! we'll make the source code available as long as people aren't allowed to look at it, think about it or talk about it.
air and light and time and space
"When you have dinner with the devil, make sure you have a long spoon".
If anybody at the EU Commission is still in love with Microsoft, that should wake them up. I hope.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Won't this proposal likely be rejected too then, seeing as IIRC a major reason the previous one was rejected was because it disallowed open source implementatins?
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
It's stuff like this that can keep Samba out of many places where it could be very handy, and instead allows a Windows Server 2003 box in.
I hope the EU tells Microsoft off.
It's interesting how Gates is looking more and more like Lord Palpatine in recent years. The chin especially looks similar. I expect that Gates will be wearing a hood soon.
Can someone explain to me how Microsoft sees itself in the position to make demands? They've been found guilty of anticompetitive behaviour and have been sanctioned accordingly. "Your honor, I offer to go to prison if I get 24/7 internet access, a laptop and a PS3." I'd be the laughing stock of the judicial system.
the European politicians asked European computer industry representatives for whether this was a good solution. And since most of them have just as much stake in closed, proprietary solutions as Microsoft, they all nodded in agreement.
Microsoft loves this because they know they can kill any commercial competitor they like through either FUD or just buying them; they just haven't figured out how to kill competition from FOSS.
FOSS advocates need to be vocal and clear that this is not an acceptable solution and that it will hurt competition and that it will hurt the economy.
How is this different than anything else released under Microsoft Shared Source Initiative? everything else they have released stated that you can look, but can't share changes with anyone.
I thought people/companies were free (as in speech!) to release their code under whatever license terms they wish. Does "free as in Free Software" actually mean "whatever the FSF deems acceptable"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I thought there was something else that needed to be done before the EU would accept this settlement. But geez... a SETTLEMENT in a criminal case after being found guilty? Unimaginable. (Prior to being found guilty is common though)
... they shouldn't be able to get away with this... let's hope Microsoft gets the beating they deserve somewhere down the line.
I hope the targetting of Open Source is rejected. If you want to write code and share it with people you should be allowed that freedom. Not having documentation hasn't STOPPED the SAMBA project... it just takes longer and is a bit more problematic when it comes to ironing out bugs and keeping up with the changes.
Microsoft won't stop SAMBA this way.
Maybe somebody can clarify, because it seems a bit ambiguous to me. Is this a prohibition against using the MS stuff in free programs, or in open source programs? There's a significant difference. I could see it being at least halfway reasonable if MS didn't want their stuff published in open source software (thus making it public knowledge), but it would be rather irrational to ban its use in free closed-source software as well.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
When the terms of the settlement were announced several people brought up the way they could be used against open-source software and Samba was frequently mentioned.
Why is anyone surprised?
Has Microsoft shared interoperability info in the past? Sure if this is accepted it won't make the Samba team's job any easier, but its not going to make it harder than it already is. These guys are amazingly good at reverse engineering MS's stuff. Sure it would be nice if the EU made MS give away the keys to the castle, but really do we need it? All this doom and gloom is completely unfounded.
Samba hasn't had this data in the past, and they've managed to write a darn good SMB/CIFS server. This won't end the Samba project by any means.
I'm not saying MS shouldn't have to share the data, I'm just saying if they don't it won't be the end of the world
Look, Bill, let me explain something to you. The purpose of a government is to protect people from forces that are more powerful than themselves and which will harm them. Gangs. Nuclear terrorists. Wildfires. One of those things is monopolies: companies that have a stranglehold on a necessary commodity. We have laws that prohibit companies that hold a monopoly from behaving in certain ways. Preventing interoperability with competing products in a universal network is one such behavior. If MS had 50% of the market, SAMBA wouldn't have a case. But they have more than 90% - a technical monopoly.
If you have trouble with the big words, ask Melissa to explain them to you.
That you are going to really hear it now?
You somewhat have a point, but it overlooks the purpose of a corporation. The State of Washinton gave Microsoft a corporate charter, with the idea that they would produce something of value and perform a service for the state (ie: its citizens). Let's ignore the fact that this is an overseas matter for now.
To say that we should protect corporations from losses due to alternative products would be disasterous. We are supposed to demand that Microsoft works in our best interest (as long as they have that charter) and we are not supposed to think of theirs. I know this isn't how things are; but how there were and how they should be.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Because you can't remove the competing programs from the operating system.
The EU doesn't like the fact that you can't remove IE and you can't remove Windows Media Player from Windows and that it's already installed from out of the box.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
So now a non-oss company of SAMBA team members makes one closed source binary that contains only the necessary functions and sells the rights to distribute the binary for $1 to SAMBA. All of the tools that utilize that binary are still open, and any functionality that REQUIRES knowledge of the MS code, must be implemented in that binary. MS is happy, the Linux world is happy, I'm happy. Not as thrilled as if they would allow OSS to use this info, but still happy!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Simple: Microsoft has clearly established and abused a monopoly and there is no efficient market for the type of software sold by Microsoft.
Governments in a capitalist society have a duty to ensure efficient markets in those areas that are not natural monopolies (and to ensure natural monopolies are not abused).
Think of this as punishment for Microsoft's past abuses of its monopoly if you will, or think of it as governments acting to regulate companies that operate in a manner that is detrimental to a free market and hence to their citizens.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't see how this will affect Samba. They've never had access to how SMB/CIFS works in the past, how will not having access to it now affect them?
If anything it shows how strong Linux & F/OSS is. I'd say it's more of a compliment rather than an insult.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
It's not like Samba could be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions.
Oh SURE they can! They can simply sue Samba devs for "using our specifications illegally as stated in blahblahblah".
The samba devs would have to prove that they did NOT in fact read the specs. Frankly I don't know how this is different from software patents.
It isn't a copy of MS technology. It is a copy of DEC and IBM technology, with a few mods so it will also work properly with MS technology...
Oh well, what the hell...
People have incorrectly assumed that Samba must implement the methods described in these patents. In fact, the methods described in these patents are quite inappropriate for a Unix/POSIX CIFS implementation such as Samba. It would not even be possible to implement the methods described in these patents in a portable POSIX application. Instead, Samba treats the SMBreadbraw and SMBwritebraw protocol elements in the same way as all other elements of the CIFS/SMB protocol. This means that Samba should be completely unaffected by the existence of these patents. Microsoft claims that Samba is infringing anyway.
After all, I am strangely colored.
As long as they produce a superior product their profits are not in any danger. However they don't have a right to make a profit.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
This is a bunch of bullcrap. The Samba team did not have that information available. In fact, the protocols and codes were reverse-engineered to obtain interoperability.
But let's say, for just a minute, that Microsoft somehow wants to pull Samba into this ridiculous web of deceit. Nobody said that this has been approved already. And if enough people raise hell at the EU, this will be turned down. Besides, when someone points out that the EU undoubtedly uses Samba in possibly thousands of EU government computers (at various levels in government), this will get turned down extremely quickly.
Microsoft can continue to turn defeats into stunning victories, but the tighter they close their fists, the more computers slip through their fingers. And there will be a day when no computer in the world runs anything with the name Microsoft on it. I guarantee it. Many empires that were bigger and more powerful than Microsoft are now but a footnote in a history book. Where is the Roman empire? I don't care if it lasted a thousand years before it fell. Microsoft will not be so lucky, especially as they piss off increasing numbers of individuals, companies, and even governments with their business practices, prices, and defective products. And even if Samba is somehow supposed to be banned from the EU, there are billions of people all over the world, and thousands of Samba programmers who live outside the EU, and rest assured they will continue to use and develop it anyway.
Asking to allow competition with all but its main competitor.
What is all this about? Isn't it about allowing competition?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Putting aside criticism of a decision that would support this suggestion from Microsoft, what's to stop the Samba people from incorporating and "selling" their product for $1 (or Euro, or whatever), if the stipulation is that free software can't make use of this?
It would of course require a change in license. But, apart from developers who have a moral objection to terms like this and would no longer work on the project, wouldn't it still be a viable project? Would people no longer be willing to work for free on "dollar-ware" -- especially if the idea is to beat Microsoft at its own game?
Maybe the project would fork: Samba would continue to more or less reverse engineer, and a new project could make use of Microsoft's publication.
This is just a thought. Please, no flames!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Doesn't MacOS X use Samba? Microsoft has more to think about before they take down Samba than just the Open Source movement.
If Microsoft keeps trying to force companies to choose, the list of arguments against Microsoft will only get longer.
It's down to Microsoft's good grace that it still exists at all.
From what I understand, Samba was created through reverse engineering, and the main reason MS hasn't sued is because basically, they can't - it's a product designed solely for interoperability, and any case would (hopefully) be thrown out.
that i am referring to feature/functionality additions made to samba subsequent to the release of the interoperability info.
sum.zero
"If MS had 50% of the market, SAMBA wouldn't have a case"
Even in that case Samba would have a winning case.
You have ALWAYS to allow for interoperatibility; if you don't like it, just don't play the game. Bill Gates is free to take his money and smoke it if he wants (well, even literally, I think that in the States firing a money note is not considered "destroying federal property" now), but if he wants to "build thingies" that interoperaty with anything else, he should allow for anything else to interoperate with hims.
Even in the USA with such corporate-favouring laws you should have present the "Lexmark case". I don't think Lexmark holds 50% of any bussiness, still they lost regarding the "unofficial" tonner marketeers.
in the orginal post:0 5/06-06EUFactSheet.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun
MS is complying by "enabling two paths by which the WSPP protocols can be used by companies whose business model includes software distributed in open source form"
I'm sure that these paths don't include Linux binaries or release of the source code... but it doesn't appear that they are completely against open source implementations, just against releasing their source.
Why the hell not just give us some extremely detailed specifications to ensure compatibility... Linux developers managed to write a TCP/IP stack that follows standards better than MS's... lets see Linux Dev's create a windows compatible server that follows their own specs better than they do!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
Hullo? The monopolist is not being asked to hand over any code. They are being asked to simply provide the information neccessary for competitors to inter-operate with microsoft windows.
Please explain how that amounts to microsoft "dismantling itself"
[i] Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.[/i]
It isn't being ordered to do that. MS is a monopoly. Not necessarely illegal, but hurts the consumers just the same. In order to mitigate that unnecessary damage, monopolies are usually regulated.
In this case, the EU doesn't want this company, especially since it is foreign, to hinder any competition in the market. MS does that, or has the power to do that, very well with its control over proprietary protocols and desktop dominance. The EU wants to dismantle this control to create an even playing field, so that anyone (including open source) can implement their own tools to use those communication channels as well as MS. The hope is that the market will foster more competition and thus benefit the consumer.
They aren't ordering MS to turn over all its code and copyrights. Just the way they setup (not implemented) certain communication components.
Of course with Politics out and above swinging maddly, they probably shot a bit high. They learned from our DOJ, if you shoot at the target, MS will nudge it just enough to miss. The EU is shooting really high and hoping after all the delays, back and forth mumbling, and what not, the arrow will at the least hit the edge of the target.
It has been done in the past: http://smithii.com/?q=node/view/23
Oh well, what the hell...
Charge $0.01 for a very liberal license to use samba. That keeps it non-free, and allows it to be used anywhere.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
> Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
Dismantle? Dismantle?? What kind of drugs are you on? Providing documentation is not the same as being dismantled! And as for why, well, you might as well ask why a private citizen has to go to jail. It's because they were convicted of a crime and are being punished. I mean, duh!
> It's not like Samba could be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions.
Geeze, even for slashdot, this is a silly comment. Hasn't the "free speech, not free beer" quote been posted about a million times? Of course Samba can be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions! Vendors like IBM, HP, Sun, Red Hat, Novell, and yes, even SCO sell Samba. Just because none of them have exclusive rights to the code does not mean it's not a commercial product! Locking out Samba harms dozens, maybe thousands, of companies, as well as consumers, for the private benefit of just one company. That is the definition of antitrust.
HTH, HAND
Anti-trust action can be a harsh solution.
Look at the case against Alcoa Aluminum back in the 1940's (or possibly 50's). They were not carrying out any predatory practices against their competitors, just innovating better and faster ways to make and deliver aluminum.
Because they did it so well, they left their competitors in the dust and dominated the market.
The U.S. government forced them to give their trade secrets to their competitors and make major adjustments to their pricing and marketing to allow their less-worthy competitors to profit and gain market share.
So, the precedent is there for the same kind of thing to happen again.
"If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime." - Unknown
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
The Samba team has done perfectly well so far reverse engineering SMB with no assistance from Microsoft. This just means business as usual for them. Of could come up with a mandatory authentication mechanism that can't be reverse engineered, but this would break backwards compatibility with all previous versions of SMB as well.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
subject line says it all.
Samba itself can only be harmed if Microsoft uses this declaration as a wedge to enforce what it sees as its rights to a proprietary protocol (that they (a) didn't originally create, and (b) published a couple of RFCs about).
But... Sun and IBM and RedHat and HP and Novell, who all use the Samba server in their OS offerings to compete with Microsoft, will definitely be harmed by this decision if it stands.
As to why a monopolist aggressor should be forced to dismantle itself, a corporation is an artificial entity created to serve the needs of the citizens; in relatively recent times, a corporation is a demi-person. If we can inflict significant penalties (most of a person's life) for crimes, what is irrational about forcing a monopolist to disclose protocol documentation?
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
**slaps head** The yoda misquote aside...
big business should be protected from open source because it wipes out their profits without any commercial gain and impacts taxable income!
Like IBM, Redhat, and dozens of other businesses out there right? Oh, those don't count? Even for businesses that don't have a direct stake in OSS, there's a huge capital advantage because it allows businesses to shift capital away from non-core expenses. ie. they're not wasting money on software. Thus businesses as a whole are strengthened becuase of OSS. Only the relatively few boxed software companies will feel the pinch. The rest do better.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Precisely.
Furthermore, being able to sell the product commercially is completely irrelevant. Samba never has been and probably will never be a commercial project. The problem is that Samba will be effectively dead if this is allowed to pass. If they release information about their Samba implementation, Microsoft has but to say "hey, those Samba guys are using our information in an open-source project!" and Samba would be no more in Europe.
it makes since that they would agree to license the info to other for profit company rather than release the protocals into the public domain... I mean that would be good for us and their customers, but clearly it would be bad for them.
It's "their property" and forcing them to give it away is hard even for most governments. Forcing them to license it to some 3rd (for profit) organization isn't evil...
Just doens't help us., esp. with DCMA...
http://www.hawknest.com/
Perhaps Samba should start charging a penny for the software. And ignore "piracy". And oops, mess up the CVS firewalling and permissions so that everyone can get at the code.
Vote Libertarian
Has Samba gotten enough market share to distribute their own Windows client? I know Samba offers ease of deployment and enables it's own rapid growth by working with MS so well but can't SMB be improved upon? If I want to compromise a windows environment the first thing I would do is capture SMB packets to get the MD4? challenge/response. Microsoft has already proven their ability to emulate or buy everyone else's technology (Remember the Internet King? Hats off to Matt G.!). How are we any different? Did they buy NDS and call it AD? Would there have been an AD without NDS? I think working with SMB is important to gain more markget share but how long do we JUST emulate MS? Microsoft's ego would prevent them from 'adopting' better open source technologies long enough for OSS to gain significant market share. For so many years the only hit for "Linux" on Microsoft's site was how to use the /MBR switch for FDISK.
If Airbus's proprietary secrets were making them a monopoly, and they chose to abuse it, then that would be a good deal.
Just because Microsoft and Gates appear to have a good moment doesn't mean it will last long. But then again, it is lasting long until Longhorn comes out. For a deadline to release in 2003, Microsoft shows that they can make something last long. Now Jobs has his own dashboard widget counting down the days until Longhorn. Long live Samba.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
It's funny how earlier MS said they wanted to work with the F/OSS community. It's things like this that provide reason why no one should trust MS.
Nope.
You're repeating yourself, and it's still no.
Repeating yourself again, using imagery to reinforce it, and again...no.
Samba is not a competitor to Microsoft. Samba does not run on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft does not sell or market it's SMB protocols separately from Windows. Microsofts SMB protocols have not been ported to any other operating system on which Samba runs.
Microsoft refusing to open source their protocols and methods does not disadvantage the Samba project, principally because nothing has changed anyway. Samba arose from reverse engineering SMB messages sniffed out on a network. And Samba engineers will continue to improvise, adapt, and overcome like they always have. That adaptability is what makes OSS better than proprietary solutions.
Now go back to sleep, chicken little.
Food is a limited resource...software is not.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
The CIFS protocol along with MSs implementation of Active Directory/LDAP/Kerberos is sufficiently understood by the Samba team as well as other people that MS's antics don't make much of a difference.
;)
The real reason MS doesn't want to share information about the CIFS protocol is that it would expose their shoddy engineering for all to see
And just for anyone wondering here is the slashdot story about it. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/ 221235&tid=109&tid=1&tid=106
every UNIX vendor uses Samba. If MS can destroy Samba then all he UNIX shops have to buy a Windows server to serve files for a few of the PeeCees... Including Mac OS X shops. ;-)
Your Average Joe
OK, I have an obvious question.
If the SMB method of networking file servers and print servers is hopeless, has anyone considered making an alternative for NFS? Essnetially doing the End Round maneuver on these asswipes? As an example for comparison purposes, you can get plug-ins to the Explorer that give you access to FTP sights in a similar manner that you would access a network drive. Can something like this be accomplished for the NFS protocol?
Similarly for LPR/CUPS to close out the functional space that SMB occupies. I probably forgot some other aspects of Windows networking, but I haven't really used it since Windows 95 so I'm not one in the know.
the proposal specifically precludes the information from being used in a free software implementation
In other words, if you're going to improve our code, we reserve the right to purchase you in the future.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
This is similar to the IBM anti-trust suit in the 1980s where IBM was using different connectors on their models to prevent third-party companies from making compatible hardware. The court forced IBM to use the same connectors for all models in the same family. Some of these connectors became defacto standards for serial and parallel interconnectivity. Microsoft needs to be held to the same standard for software interoperativity.
His handle is "Sheetrock" - as in, "smart as..."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Jesus. Christ. YHBT. HAND.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
hes got a point man, i've been waiting forever for someone to put out a new nfs for windows client, the unix acl model is a lot more flexible from my pov than the windows model, and unless youre streaming a big file over an FD eth switch the performance is god-awful.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine .html
I guess the world owes him a living. Notice the date on it.
C|N>K
It doesn't matter how much they charge (or don't), because the restriction is on whether the source is open or not. Samba, or anything GPL or with GPL code, cannot close its source or even offer a closed-source version, and Microsoft knows that. Of course this is simply a proposal, and the EU could refuse or require that file service protocols be GPL-compatible.
bp
Fine. YOU try finding decent developers...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
However, all this "boo-hooing" in the Open Source community about Microsoft is slowing progress and gives everyone a bad name. If the open source community (and specifically Linux) want to compete with Microsoft, it's my opinion that they just have to make better, more appealing software. Obviously something isn't "better" if it's offered completely for free and is still dwarfed by something that costs lots more out of the box. Linux developers need to concentrate harder on the "user friendly" and "ease of use" parts of their operating systems just as hard as they're concentrating on adding new features and tweaking. Linux can't compete because it is, right now, still very arcane to the vast majority of computer users, including many IT employees. Windows just has more things a USER wants, and while it isn't the most secure/stable operating system out, that's why people use it. People love that it comes with support for just about anything that they can plug into their computer, and just about any popular application runs on it.
Right now the gap in useability doesn't make up for the money people would save if they'd switch to Open Source. It is well on its way and has seen incredible growth in the past few years but right now it's pointless to comment on how much or how little it gets used versus an operating system that you CAN'T POSSIBLY COMPARE TO. Just because they both offer the same features doesn't mean they are comparable products. Microsoft creates a more appealing package to the user, which is what Open Source needs to do. It has stability and security going for it, it's just not user friendly enough!
This post isn't meant to be "pro-Microsoft" or "anti-Open Source." I'm just calling it like I see it. What does everyone else think?
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Somehow, I don't think the Samba team would appreciate being associated with going to the loo.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Sorry but Opensource is not a competitor. However Redhat, Novell etc. are. They can always if they want buy a license, pay MS cheap/for free (depending on what MS agreed with EU) and implement and release on top of linux. That means in no way is MS restricting competitors at all.
Sorry the requirement of people here that it has to be compatible with opensource is stupid. This is because GNU is not technically open, it has a lot of restrictive clauses. Opensource is a philosophy and NOT a competitor or company
The developers benefit from having a quality OS for their own use...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
i'm bill gates, bitch!
It doesn't preclude "free" implementations. It requires the addition of a notice to any software which consumes it (similar to how the GPL requires you to include the GPL with copies of your software, or software you derive and distribute).
This requirement makes it GPL incompatible, but hardly precludes free implementations.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Darth Gates: Linus, I am your father!
Linus Skywalker: Nooooo! That's impossible!
Darth Gates: Search your feelings - you know it to be true!
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
I agree with the empire analogy: they're going to vanish - but doesn't it bother you that they took so much of our damn cash first? Through extortion, elimination of choice, etc, no less. Imagine what a better place the world would be if that cash wasn't being funneled to the last guy on earth who needs it. For his mediocre product (and that's being polite).
If there is one company that could afford to produce quality, it's M$. And they never will. Where's the incentive?
I won't be happy until the software "industry" no longer reduces the majority of people to hapless, shaken down dupes.
you had me at #!
I have nothing more to say then this is just plain ridiculous. Specifying the public domain as the competition, the enemy in an antitrust ruling? I bet the crony at Microsoft who thought this thing up is thinking he is "pretty smart". Little does he know the backslash that's coming for such impudence.
OT but...
exactly.
The Roman empire blended Christianity with Roman mythology and became the holy roman empire that later become the catholic church.
Non illegemati carborundum est!
"Samba is the only remaining major competitor of Microsoft in this market."
Uh, what market is that? File serving? EMC, Network Appliance, SNAP, and others might challenge that. Maybe I really just don't understand what "market" is being referred to here.
Why not just write an open source "Samba Service" for windows which will provide the same functionality without relying on the "Inner Party" (redmond) to provide a closed solution. As an added bonus, you won't have to wait for a "hotfix" or "service pack" when security issues arise.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Nobody is asking a commercial company to dismantle itself and hand itself over to open source. All they are asking for is thoroughly documented API's. That does not require code. And BTW what makes SW so special as compared to any other industry?
C|N>K
It seems that if the settlement says they have to open up the software to competitors then they should embrace Samba. The fact that it is open source doesn't impact one bit, the opening of the software to competitors. If anything, it guarantees it.
Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
It would be antitrust if they forced another company to do this. Why isn't it antitrust if they're forced to do it by an immensely powerful entity?
It's not like Samba could be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions. They're giving away their product for free! If anything (and I'm not saying this makes sense either) big business should be protected from open source because it wipes out their profits without any commercial gain and impacts taxable income!
It is because of antitrust that they are being forced to do this. Applying a remedy to a monopoly isn't a violation of antitrust, it's to level the field.
Samba wouldn't be harmed commercially, but any product that used it wouldn't be able to do so anymore, so they would be harmed.
Big business is built on open source. In the case of Microsoft, exactly where do you think the tcp/ip, dns, and the rest of the internet came from? It was all publicly funded research and published as such. Guess what, that's open source (just not GPL).
So the question should be, why should big business get to profit and have commercial gain of research that was funded by the public through taxes?
This has already been discussed at length by the industry analysts last week when the EU indicated that it was likely to accept Microsoft's proposal. See http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/200506 02/tc_zd/153327.
There were effectively two requirements resulting from this case: Selling a version of Windows without Media Player, and Licensing the technology behind its Server protocols.
It's the latter case that the EU can't do much about. Microsoft wants to charge a per-copy license fee for implementations of its Server protocols. The EU's ruling requires Microsoft to license the protocols, but explicitly allows the company to charge fees for the licenses. OSS projects hate this "per-seat" license because it doesn't work with their model of giving away copies without even keeping track of how many are in existence. So the OSS community is lobbying the EU Commission to reject ANY per-seat license fee, because it destroys their ability to use such a license.
Unfortunately for the OSS community, the EU Commision doesn't just represent OSS groups: it also represents all the makers of proprietary software throughout Europe. And these proprietary software vendors actually support Microsoft's position here.
See, per-seat licensing is an extremely common way to sell software; revenue is generated in direct proportion to the popularity of your product. These proprietary software vendors are scared at the thought that any company should be forced to give up this form of sales because it is "incompatible with OSS competition." So when the EU shops around this Microsoft proposal to industry leaders, most commercial software companies will probably indicate their satisfaction with Microsoft's per-seat license proposal. They certainly don't want to set up any legal precedents for future run-ins with Open Source competitors claiming THEIR license fees are "unfair."
I see you don't know very much about Goverments.
Since when did Microsoft have "90%" of the server market?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If the EU accepts this, that does not mean Red Hat, IBM, etc can't sue for anti trust practices in the US and I believe the smart people at those companies can win. Hell someone proved MS was in violoation of anti-trust in the first place.
Doesn't help if they're supposed to be developing for OSX or XP. They need to be eating their own dog food.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Sorry but Opensource is not a competitor.
You've got it wrong. Open source most definitely is a competitor; it competes for my desktop, and does so very well. Just because it is unburdened by outrageous licensing terms and costs does not mean it has no value.
If Microsoft is going to reside on the internet, they've got a responsibility to make their systems compatible with other systems using the same network. Otherwise, as a direct result of their monopoly, they would become defacto owners of all networks, controlling access to the data on all Windows machines connected to the network, regardless of the data owners wishes.
Imposing fees and/or stifling conditions on alternative systems to access data that the data owner may wish to share freely only benefits Microsoft. It's known as "double-dipping." If the aforementioned data owner is using a Windows machine to serve his data, that owner has already paid a fee to Microsoft, and Microsoft should not be entitled to charge or otherwise burden third parties.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft isn't preventing interoperability.
There is a difference between actively preventing interoperability, and not providing interoperability.
In this case, Microsoft is simply refusing to publish API information to make interoperability easier, but they don't appear to be trying to prevent interoperability with the competition.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
In many countries a basic quantity of food is available for free to those who can't afford to pay for it.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Lexmark didn't have a patent on their toner chips and the reverse engineering that the competition did turned out to be perfectly legal even under the DMCA. If the cartridge-printer communication had been so complicated that it could not have been reverse engineered, I believe Lexmark would still be the only one selling toner for their printers.
Samba isn't especially great to begin with, regardless if we are talking about the protocol or the software. Why not simply make something WAY better (zeroconfig might play a role in it as well) and make that compatible with windows. Turn the table around, and start inventing instead of trying to be compatible with windows. Remember OS/2?
This would be struck down immediately if MS would have said "Okay, we'll open up if as long as nobody charges less for it than we do.". Why would it be different if they happened to exclude people based on how much they charge for their product?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
From the Preamble of the GPL: Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. And a clause from the GPL: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. In other words, if that patent arrangement with MS did not allow, say, Mandrake to also redistribute the software, then Novell and Red Hat have just violated the GPL and have lost their rights to distribute SAMBA. Please research before speaking.
Sorry, should have previewed. The comment should look like this.
From the Preamble of the GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
And a clause from the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
In other words, if that patent arrangement with MS did not allow, say, Mandrake to also redistribute the software, then Novell and Red Hat have just violated the GPL and have lost their rights to distribute SAMBA. Please research before speaking.
The only harm this could do to Microsoft is to weaken the power of its illegal monopoly. Of course, this was supposedly already weakened by the outcome of the anti-trust case a few years back, although they're now aware that the sentance was ineffective.
Moving on...
The HTML file format is open, along with plenty of others. The FTP protocol is open, along with plenty of others. Microsoft uses these without any harm to its business.
Microsoft's closing of its file formats and protocols only serves to lock others out. This is made worse due to its monopoly position.
Concerning your suggestion that big business should be protected from Open Source: you're saying that you'd sacrifice the freedom of many so that a single company can make loads of money?
I'll tell you something, small to medium sized businesses should be protected from Microsoft, because it muscles into successful markets via its monopoly, and wipes out their profits for its own commercial gain.
When Microsoft can no longer make money from its saturated markets, it muscles into other markets, killing off or hurting other businesses.
Do you think that Microsoft should have this power, or that we should have fair competition?
Do you want to aid a single company, or aid millions of cash-strapped companies who would benefit from Open Source software?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Actually SAMBA is only a visible example.
But clearly if the EC accept this it would actually means that the ONLY tool against the progressive expantion of M$'s monopolist position would be severely blunted.
On the long run as long as M$ has their command of the end user PC they can get any market they want, it may take time, it may need intermediary steps, but NO propritary source company has any chance to really compete on the long run.
Accepting interoperability and forbiding to make it Open Source is a way to make sure that all "competitors" need to use their business model, and in M$'s business model the "biggest wins" since it can allways affort to dump the price until they are the only game in town.
So hopefully it will not work, if it does it would mean that we will have to create a fund to develop "public domain" "closed source" gateways.
It would be an interesting test of the strength of the community, but above all it would be an hassle and a total waste of time.
The whole point of them being in the feckin dock in the first place is because of anti-competitive practices, with open source being highlighted as a victim of this. Now Microsoft are suggesting this? If the courts say "Yes ok" to thid then the whole thing is about kickbacks. Plain and simple.
Interesting that Wonka chocolates were loved by everyone in the world, and were far and away the most popular chocolate, but no one knew anything about the inner workings of the factory.
In the end though, even those secrets became known.
We should try to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not be cursed to repeat them time and time again.
still considerable german workforce and with a decade of history as a german company.
and there's mandriva in france..
hm.. trolltech (norway) might be interested in some win32 protocols, too
and no, apart from SAP we don't have that many big software companies over here
To adopt an Open Standart, one that doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft.
I must admit that SMB make it easy to share files, but it is flawed, it belongs to Microsoft and they make it a moving target. And it's the only widely used and avaliable solution out there, NFS doens't count since it don't work with Windows.
There are already some efforts to bring something new to the file-sharing arena, like Novell's iFolder that uses WebDAV to share files... and have Linux, Windows and MacOSX clients.
We need more options.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
You be the judge http://www.remrock.net/remrock/gallery/picture.php ?jpgFile=rem/rem_95_01.jpg&picWidth=555&picHeight= 419/
It is a world of instant gratification a user wants to:
- Use immediatly the new computer/server, do not want to download/install extra stuff (amazingly they however install lots of spyware)
- Have the same user interface. If they are used to Windows file manager they wants the same look. (But some of them are happy to try the new bells from Microsoft and some others are still using windows 3.11)
Maybe the trick is to market the thing as "you have to do only ONE thing", so, in this case, it would be "You have to install only one program" and the program is the same on both client and servers and is installed in all machines ?
I wonder if there is a way to have people to think about "consequences" for their choices instead of just looking at instant gratification.
Make Samba commercial, charge me $1 for it, and I'll license out copies to others for no charge.
Companies/OSs using Samba include
IBM AIX
/Debian
Red Hat
SHI Irix
Mandriva
Novell and SuSE
H-P
Sun (Solaris and Cobalt)
American Megatrends' StorTrends NAS
Applianceware Optifacio
EmergeCore Networks
FreeBSD Systems
and others. Are any of these on the list of "testers"?
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
1) Microsoft is a convicted recividivist in monopoly abuse. Not a competitive company. Special rules apply to monopolies.
2) Microsoft's argument that they are obliged to turn over code is both false and beheaded by their insisting on excluding Samba and not Sun nor Novell.
3) This very matter is of prime importance as it will set a precedent. For the first time in history you had an anti-trust authority specifically recognizing that a monopolist erected artificial and anti-competitive barrier to entry to its competitors. This is very very great news. Think to all other protocols (Exchange, MSN, etc.) and file formats (WordML, WMA). If the ruling stands before the Court then the software patents is way weaker because anti-trust regulations have the very power to authorize competitors to violate a patent to enact inter-operability - even if this provision is not in itself added to the european software patent bill.
4) Microsoft understands this and will fight to hell against this very small portion of the proposed settlement.
5) There are very bright and educated people in charge of this case at the EC Merger Task Force. They have been able to understand the problem and to explain it to the highest hierarchical level. This is an extremly impressive achievements considering the complexity of the subject and the usual compter-illiterateness of those.
6) These very people will stand firm - so will Microsoft. The only remaining points IMHO are: a) wether the Court of justice will buy the "they force use to divulgate valuable trade secrets" or "they shall not exclude their last remaining competitor from inter-operability". b) wether the United States will make it a political matter of US vs Europe.
b) is unlikely IMHO given the strong competitors to Microsoft in the US and the current Boeing vs Airbus battle.
a) is possible but note that the EC was smart enough to include the wording "provided they are not specially innovative" in their mandate to provide specifications. This should let them the best luck in Court.
My point is: there are bright people in charge and Microsoft will most probably lose this one. My belief is that Microsoft basically underestimated the abilities of the EC and thought that the real battle was in the US. They were wrong.
while samba is the closest thing in the open source area in the form of a competitor to ms (in its own territory). Its really becoming less and less of a competitor all the time. can we spell active directory... most big corporates i've work in have either ads or (to a very much lesser extend) novell. in none of them have i been allowed to add a samba server as a ads member, and thats where it really hurts. In smaller companies, you can get away with samba, but i've always found trying to map between unix and windows is so painfull. But, thats whats so wrong with the whole situation, ms should be FORCED to open up any and EVERY protocol they are using, not just for O/S reasons, but for everyone who wants to make money trying to make a competitor in one of ms's (increasinly) large circle od self-dependence. To me its like if ford made gas tank nozzles so that you could only fill up at shell, both of them would be sued into non-existence, yet ms get away with this on a daily basis. Its sickening.
Very interesting artical. It also says that the IDL descriptions would be extreemly useful. If Microsoft was only concerned about sharing the source code then they would be happy to give these so called IDL descriptions.
"There is information that the Samba developers want to see: the IDL descriptions for remote procedure calls. These underpin tasks such as adding users, and adding quotas and shares, and Samba developers have successfully decoded them over the wire. But it's hard work.
"These IDL descriptions are *key* for providing interoperability with Microsoft clients," wrote the team in a submission to the EU commissioners earlier this year. "If these IDL descriptions were published, open and equal interoperability with Microsoft products would be greatly enhanced (although still not perfect)."
Allison says the Samba team has requested the IDL definitions from Microsoft annually, most recently at the 2001 CIFS conference, without success."
In many countries a basic quantity of food is available for free to those who can't afford to pay for it.
Still not free. As Heinlein once noted, they have to charge extra for the beer to cover the cost.
FreeSpeech.org
I dunno about that. I know several companies, including the rather large one I currently work at, that rely heavily on Samba. There's no way we're getting rid of our several hundred Unix (Solaris, HPUX, & Linux) servers, so if new versions of Windows desktop won't talk to them, we may have no choice but to switch to Linux for our 20,000+ desktop systems. Such a switch would be tremendously expensive (in terms of time to do the switch and training for end-users), but probably less so than purchasing PC/NFS and a new version of Windows for every system. And management might finally see that there's a big payoff in long-term maintenance costs. As for software, we're already using a lot of Java-based systems for our in-house apps, so all we need to run it on a workstation is a good web browser. Openoffice can replace MS-Office without losing document portability (in fact, gaining some since they'll be readable from Unix as well). Email, desktop publishing, database, calendaring, project planning, software configuration management tools, etc., all have Linux equivalents (often, such as with the Rational suite, the same software, from the same vendor).
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
1. Post flamebait.
2. Pretend to be someone else and post a message as AC protesting flamebait moderation.
???
4. Profit!
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
It's one thing to charge for an fork...but without food, that cutlery is just worthless hunks of metal and plastic.
That argument makes no sense at all. For one thing, people CAN and SHOULD be able to offer free and "Free" food. My mother obtained strawberry plants--at no cost--form a fellow parishoner many years ago. They have since thrived and MULTIPLIED and now mum's strawberry patch is too large for her to manage. She put many plants in the compost but gave some to me so I could grow them in the back yard. The ladies out there also sell fresh strawberries, pies and preserves at farmer's markets in addition to giving away stuff to friends.
There you have it--the biological version of "peer-to-peer file sharing". There is no law against the "unauthorised duplication and/or distribution of strawberries" that a large corporation can use to restrict individuals or potential competitors from making strawberries. International dumping laws are the closest thing, and they only apply to governments and large companies who sell at a loss to deliberately eliminate a competitor.
Microsoft is trying to be like Monsanto--who has new breeds of oilseeds and grains and is trying to use the patent system to restrict and control a natural process. Neither is right in doing that. Microsoft's solution around CIFS is like Monsanto saying "we'll publish the information on our roundup-ready Canola, but that co-op of Saskatchewan farmers or that university research group cannot ever make a royalty-free version to compete with our variety".
In both situations I think this is damaging to society--especially in ther case of agriculture. Food is much too important to be the proprietary domain of a molopolistic enterprise. While software is not an important basic need for people, it is nonetheless a vital part of the global economy, so I believe Micorosft's proposed remedy is entirely insufficient. It holds a monopoly over a protocol that enables information exchange important to the functioning of most business systems. MS has demonstrated in the past it cannot be trusted with SMB/CIFS as it has made changes to deliberately break reverse-engineered systems. Microsoft should've been ordered to relinquish control of the protocol to a standards body like ECMA/IEC/IEEE/ISO...and prohibited from applying restrictions of use which are obviously targeted at preventing their main competitor from operating under the terms of its own choosing.
Great analogy :)
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Well, not companies or NGOs.
They are suppossed to represent goverments which in turn represent citizens.
The should be evaluating what is the best for the prosperity and good governance of the citizens of the EU, no who benefits amongst sofware companies, FLOSS proponents or any other *interested* party.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The Dark Side of the force win should not.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Samba will still exist. People will still move to *nix/BSD running Samba because the initial cost is cheaper (and by many estimates, TCO).
This changes nothing.
If you're going to argue Microsoft engaging in SLAPP, then do so. But to characterize them using their market position to their own advantage is a) revealing your own ignorance and b) pure propaganda.
And please...get a dictionary...look up monopoly. This is rediculous.
if C is accused of receiving a copy from B and using it in product D, then A can get an injunction against C distributing D while the 'facts' are sorted out in court.
iirc, the onus is then on C to prove that they did clean room reverse-engineer D. in detail.
sum.zero
Personally I don't see a problem with paying for a closed source application if you need it, so long as your data is stored in an open format. Of course, in my experience, FOSS software is usually great for most jobs and I have no real need to buy closed software. And from my techie point of view, I prefer FOSS because I can fix bugs and hack in new features myself, but for the average user this is a non-issue.
Like you I'm not against proprietary or closed software. In some cases closed software is better and in other FOSS is better. For instance while GIMP is good it still doesn't have all the capabilities of Photoshop. If I could I'd work on improving gimp but I'm a much better photographer than programmer, which is funny because programming is my current major and I've never worked as a professional photographer nor majored in it though I have taken classes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You don't want to live in Canada, Europe, a nd most places outside of the USA. If I recall right when I was last in Canada about 3-4 years ago I paid about $3 a gallon, which is still cheaper than prices in Europe. Actually with higher gas prices maybe more people will think before they get that gas goozling SUV.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We could still import the gas and fix the fuel with additives but for some reason we are not allowed to
What additives are you going to add to gasoline, other than ethanol that is? There are known health risks with additives, MTBE for instance is a known carcinogen and has contaminated ground, drinking, water in California.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Microsoft is abusing their monopolistic privileges by using anti-competetive tactics with the SMB protocol, and the parent is a perfect example of how this relates using a tangible example.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
In fact there is more crude oil under Canada now then there ever was in the Middle East. However oil from the middle east is cheap to pump. Much of that oil in Canada can't be pumped for less than $80/barrel or so. Oil is now selling for ~$50/barrel and everyone is complaining about gas prices! By contrast, int the middle east they can make money at $20/barrel.
Much of that oil is from the Oil Sands in Alberta. To process, extract, the oil from the sands requires a lot of water which is then contaminated. The oil also needs a different refining process than what is done in the US now.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Airbus and Boeing are similarly-sized competitors, so anti-trust issues are just not there.
Here's a better analogy. If Airbus was an airline seat manufacturer, and Boeing made their own seats for their planes, then the US government might talk to Boeing about allowing Airbus access to portions of the airplane schematics where the seats attach to the cabin. They might also mandate that Boeing offer their customers the option of not having seats pre-installed in the airplanes the customers bought...
Now, that being said, the issue of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains. If you're a die-hard capitalist, you might believe that Airbus (the seat manufacturer) should make better seats at a price that caused Boeing's customers to purchase them and replace the "free" seats they got and paid for the cost of from Boeing.
If you're an average person, you might think that the US govt. doing what I hypothesised is fine.
If you're somebody who loathes capitalism and the idea of competition driving the market, you might think that the government should go farther and force Boeing to install Airbus-supplied seats on a percentage of their airplanes, regardless of their cost or suitability.
Something to think about.
Personally, I think that MS should be allowed to keep whatever it develops in house proprietary and closed (for as long as people will buy into that model), and that they should react to the pressures placed upon them by Open Source Software and Open Standards Definitions as they see fit (with the caveat that I believe copyright should be the only protection for software products, not patents).
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law