Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?
kripkenstein noted an Interview with Jeremy Allison where the interviewer asks 'One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects.' and Jeremy responds
"Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using [...] But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record."
fucking IP bullshit, people patent stuff just for patenting it so they can rape people later maybe someone should shoot them in the motherfucking head.
Yes, I know, software patents are the spawn of Satan, no-one (not even me, actually
I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history), but in this case, I can't see they've done anything *wrong*. You can argue that software patents are bad - yes, agreed. You can argue that these particular patents are flawed, perhaps they are. You can argue that it's just not moral to profit from the work of others, and yes I agree with that too.
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit
Simon (ducking)
Physicists get Hadrons!
While the idea is plausible and scary, where's the proof? If I were being threatened by Microsoft, I'd sure as hell make it public. What better way to defend yourself than getting support of the entire Linux/Free Software community?
does Ms have a patent on Stupidity, because that is what they are paying for.
Most home users have been forced to buy XP home anyway.
Inquiring minds want to know! Post as AC and start naming names.
Now it's time to bring in those big class-action firms and sue M$ on behalf of the whole 'nix community for breach of the GPL. If Linus himself were to be the named plaintiff, it might get the attention of some of the sheep out there. No more "Heil, Microsoft"?
Summary is linked to the *middle* of the article. This ensures that any /. reader who actually goes to TFA doesn't have to read any of that pesky 'context' or let any of that tiresome 'background' get in their way. Gotta get those First Post!! articles in!
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
No big loss. NFS is easier to use, has real file permissions, etc.
... oh wait ... I get it.
Just another "innovation" from MSFT [smb] that they'll try to horde instead of playing the "let's weigh in on technical merits" game.
And for fuck sake, why doesn't Windows support NFS? It makes mixing boxes on a lan such a bitch
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on Windows, OSX, Unix, Linux and which uses an open standard for locking, authentication, encryption, ACLs etc.
Leaving file serving in MS's control simply leaves you open to patent infringement etc.
Deleted
It's a simple matter to list them surely?
Of course, there are many bits of open source software that are covered by patents (not just from MS). For example, do you want to have a music player that will play mp3 files? You have to pay a licensing fee.
This is so common, it isn't even news.
At least, as far as I'm aware it is. They may have added stuff to the SMB protocol to make it "CIFS", but I thought it was purely a marketing exercise, designed to allow MS to licence it to others.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that Apple had paid a licence fee to MS...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Do they pay Microsoft when you buy a CIFS license for a filer?
Any of these putative companies purchasing a patent license cannot distribute any of the relevant code under the gpl. So maybe that's why they are keeping quiet, or maybe they are not re-distributing any software. If the former, then Jeremy Allison has a moral and legal duty to "out" those companies.
Patent hucksters are just common criminals. We should all treat them as such.
It is time to delete the patent system, then we delete Microsoft too.
That's been my thought for a while. It would be a big job, of course, but one that would give a true alternative to Microsoft.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, that was the idea with CIFS. Microsoft embraced it, and then extended it to become SMB.
This smells like FUD.
Would like to discuss your annual donation...
Rocco and Knuckles will be by to pick up the envelope.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Every time I think of Microsoft and the harm they are causing the end user, and the consumer, it just irritates me beyond belief. Nothing they do benefits the consumer, NOTHING. And yet, the government applauds them for their fine efforts at being completely monopolistic in our modern day capitalistic society.
Makes me want to puke.
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
Do publicly traded companies have to report this kind of thing? I would be quite concerned if a company whose stock I own was paying money under the table to organizations that had been found guilty of criminal acts. Does anybody have an idea of what companies are doing this, so that they can be asked in a stockholders' meeting.
I've read all 4 pages of it, and the full context doesn't modify the article summary.
For a change, the Slashdot submission is quite accurate.
Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on Windows, OSX, Unix, Linux and whi...
And how do you hook that into Windows such that the Kernel can efficiently make access control decisions and everything else it needs to do?
Why would anyone do that when you can buy Linux from one of several vendors that idemnify you? I mean, why pay Microsoft money when there are linux vendors who presumably for a lot less, will accept total responsibility for any patent infringement lawsuits??
All I can think is that those paying Microsoft are a little slow...or else they are somehow otherwise vested in Microsoft.
Linux users can't boycott Microsoft's products.
I heard the illuminadi made them pay Microsoft because these companies know about the Venus base! NOBODY IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VENUS BASE! Anyway, the aliens in the Venus base don't use Windows because they know the French government has installed electron bugs in it which can enter your brain and make you like blueberry bagels, and really, who wants that?
Comment of the year
Thing is, that's the problem. It seems that MS are essentially blackmailing people who use "their" technology in Samba. What they've done is destroy any trust that the SMB and CIFS technology can be used without being sued into oblivion...
With an independently controlled and standard network file system that wouldn't be the case.
Deleted
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).
In this case, the messenger is also the guilty party. M$ is one of the largest proponents of software patents and other bogus "IP" laws.
The reason you should be outraged is that they now own your code. Without any further effort than paying off a bunch of lawmakers and lawyers, they have secured an income on .... everything. They also grant themselves the power to shut down projects they don't like. Make no mistake, a little control for M$ is total control when it gets in the way of your software freedoms. Long after Vista bombs in the market place, M$ will be profiting from your work and using it to cause you further harm in any way they please.
This is why anti-patent language in GPL 3 is so important and why everyone should support it. The true cost of supporting M$ though judicial extortion will only be revealed if we hang together. The internet itself would not function without GPL'd code. Laws will change if suddenly that code is unavailable.
I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history)
I will do exactly that. See you in half an hour or so.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You can only use it in a remotely secure fashion when you have complete control of both the client and server. i.e. only within the datacenter, if a client is out on the shop floor, it's insecure.
SMB it seems may be patent encumbered, which leaves the rather unpalatable alternative that there is a need for a ground up free, open standard network filesystem which can be implemented on all platforms.
Deleted
Deleted
I have yet to hear of any evidence, *ever* in the history of computing, where software patents were anything more than the proverbial Turd In The Swimming Pool(tm). You CAN'T polish a turd! Plate it with gold and voila -- it's STILL a turd!
As Floaters ensure that only the most discusting little kids ever use the swimming pool, Software Patents ensure that only the biggest, most amoral lawyer infested companies thrive in the tech industry.
You are where you are at the time you are there.
Perhaps you mean iFolder
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal,
With this off the record business, I wonder if they are claiming it on taxes? Both on the giving and recieveing end of the "patent extortion". Basically just how under the table is this?
We are all just people.
...is that MICRO$OFT extends things which are not considered "prior art"; yet, if you want to extend M$' things, you're in for serious "legal" threats.
Corporate bullying should never be tolerated in a mature nation. Also, corporation profit compromising as a motive for prosecution tells a lot about (lack of) respect for humans.
IBM, SUN and RH may decide to make their software patent money now by extorting it from Microsoft shops at 10x the cost of Windows licenses. They could make a tidy sum and lay the groundwork for abolishing software patents in the public interest.
RTFGPL, dude. GPL is NOT an EULA. It's a distribution license.
From the GPL Section 0
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
As of yet there is no proof they are doing this. " off the record, anonymous contacts" mean nothing.
Now, if its proven to be happening, then ya. its time to get pissed off. ( though, no one can say this wasnt unexpected )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You guys totally missed the point of the article. It was about the burrito command.
Mmm, burrito.
I do agree with you 100%, however, Microsoft did say on the record they wouldnt pull this exact stunt.. So yes, we can bitch at them for going back on their word, if its true.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux. Novell were well and truly bent over the table, despite the fact that they so innocently claim that they have not admitted any IP issues with Linux or the software they use.
then watch innovation get stiffled and then watch the system melt down and eat itself.
:)
:) One day they will need to get people to get them new patents, but instead all they will be able to hire mostly is lawyers :)
Seriously, let this happen! Let them destroy their own IP ecosystem
It is going to happen, just let them speed it along
Is there an alternative? I was under the impression that Samba falls under the interoperability laws.
I'm getting older and I'm tired. OS Wars / Browser Wars / These are getting as bad as the regional conflicts in the world that have been going on for centuries. I need a new OS that will Rock my World, Will free the slaves to
A very good, free, cross platform network file system has already been written and is in use by (at very least) large universities. It's called AFS and the free version is at http://www.openafs.org/ .
Posted while sitting here, waiting patiently for WinFS or Hell to freeze over, which ever comes first.
Have gnu, will travel.
Long ago and far away, before there was OSX, when sysadmins needed to connect Macs to Windows shares, there was... DAVE. :)
Dave does WINS.
+++ATH0
... you can as well hand over your company to Microsoft and do something else. Like flipping burgers.
If you think the shares of a company going open about something like this would tank, I would like to see what would be the result for MS shares (whose price had remained pretty flat for some time now).
I think this article is baseless, but it is nice weekend speculation, conspiracy theories and all that.
But then again, if somebody would have described SCO's actions before they started their disgraceful charade, few would have believed it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Wouldn't you think that IBM, HP, and other large Linux server sellers would be a little annoyed at Microsoft shaking down their customers? The more their customers get shaken down, the less like IBM and all would get repeat business, right?
I would think that IBM could charge Microsoft with Racketeering (which is essentially what MS is doing) on behalf of their Linux customers.
Maybe the average corporation doesn't have the clout to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM does.
(Note: I'm not really a big IBM fan. I'm just pointing out that Microsoft isn't infallible).
This space left intentionally blank.
I would say that the Internet would run perfectly fine without GPL'd software because the code that runs the 'net is BSD, not GPL.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
This includes measures like:
-Not allowing users to change uid (or using mechanisms to make sure they do it only to a handful of them)
-Removing all external media from personal computers. Clog the USB ports. No laptops on the network (laptops go to a firewalled network considered hostile).
-Having restriction lists of machines allowed to mount filesystems remotely.
-Constantly generating reports of who is mounting what and when.
-And so on and so forth.
Security is a way of life, not a protocol. NFS may be shite, but many other things are shite in WIndows (most of them actually) security wise. So you should secure your networks as much as possible irrespective of the technologies you are using.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm really no expert on this, so can someone explain why ftp doesn't fill these requirements?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
There is a huge problem with this.
'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...'
Here is the catch.
'...OSX'
Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.
'...Unix'
Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.
'...Linux'
Duh
'...Windows'
And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.
In this case, blaming Microsoft for this (assuming the claims are real) is not shooting the messenger.
Microsoft refuses to reveal which code is infringing so that it could either be rewritten or (more likely) have the patent struck down due to prior art.
They're basically saying "You did something wrong but I'm not telling you what you did and you have to make up for it or else.". This is just plain extortion and should be dealt with as such.
As the old saying goes, when messenger is the message it's okay to shoot the messenger.
Just talking about it makes us look bad. If you want the moral high-ground you have to take the high ground. And against the talking suits at MS that should be an easily attainable objective. The only other way to obtain public opinion is to ingratiate or intimidate the media to make you look like you have the moral high ground. (*cough* *Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld* *cough*) FSF just isn't in a position of power to do that.
And how does that BSD code get compiled? Sun's C compiler? The mysterious BSD C compiler that doesn't exist?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
If you have an AFS client, take a look in /afs. It contains a lot more than just universities (I know you said at the very least). And there are those that do not list their sites in the public AFS directory, so the number of sites that use it is actually larger.
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).
It may be legal, but it's still wrong. It's particularly wrong because of Microsoft's history of monopolistic practices and the fact that many of their patents would probably not stand a test in court, but Microsoft is apparently using contracts and pressure to keep those patents from getting tested in court.
Therefore, our ire is, in fact, properly directed at Microsoft.
I would not doubt that Microsoft would try to extort its own customers in a SCO-like shake down. I'm pretty sure they paid SCO to do it as a sort of trial balloon. An insignificant piss ant like SCO first attacks giant like IBM, drags the litigation out for years and then Microsoft comes in: "See what SCO is doing to IBM? Nice little company you have here... Be a shame if Microsoft had to destroy it through litigation..."
I also don't doubt that some businesses may have capitulated. That does not, however, give any validity to their patent claims.
As an IT community we need to respond to Microsoft's aggression in several ways.
First we must start screaming for the justice department to once again prosecute them for their continued anti-trust violations. They must be held accountable for the damage they are doing through leveraging their monopolies. We must insist that they be broken apart into at least three and probably four separate companies.
Second, we must not cooperate with Microsoft in any way. Any "gifts" that they offer always turn out to have strings attached. Do not support any part of their dot-net strategy. I use "dot-net" in a loose way to cover many different things like their libraries, ASP.NET etc. The Mono project should die. Don't support it, don't use it.
Third, we should work to make Java, PHP, etc the defacto standards in delivering active server pages.
We all need to work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick, it won't be easy but it must be done. This company has shown again and again and again that it is not interested in coexistence.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems.
That's what it was designed for, but such an environment never really existed, even in the most draconian, centrally managed environments. Even if it had, NFS still had gotten identity management completely wrong and had numerous other problems. NFS was just a lousy design.
SMB was designed on the assumption that the client would be an insecure single-user system. All the security is on the server, and connections are on a per-user basis.
That's a lot closer to how NFS has been used in the real world. We'd all be better off if an SMB-like system, not NFS, had become the UNIX standard.
Well geez, if we're going to stupid extremes, how did the first cut of GCC get compiled?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history)
A quick Google search does not refute that. Blaming users for Microsoft's abominable security (in 2003) is the only regretable thing I found.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I've been looking at the existing alternatives,
NFS: Not appropriate outside the data center/on windows because of security model.
Coda: No native Windows client. Looks like development stalled a couple of years ago. No XP/Vista.
Intermezzo: No Windows client.
Lustre: No Windows client.
OpenAFS: Windows client, including Vista, 64bit, OSX free... But the Windows AFS server code is experimental
Yeah, OpenAFS is the closest existing an open network file system. However it's decidedly non trivial to install and configure, both on the client and server. It's really unsuitable for small sites, even for medium sized sites it's overkill. What's needed is Install -> Add shares/files -> add user accounts allowed.
Deleted
Deleted
When interviewed they refused to say which patents Linux infringes. This is pure fraud by Microsoft. Burn them alive.
Probably with the Sun C compiler. Why?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Yes, and the keyword there is suddenly. If the code is slowly, quietly and profitably (to the right folks) swapped out, it will happen.
And that's why we've got to raise a ruckus.
If you patent a mechanical device and someone infringes on your patent to sell me a knockoff, you can sue them and make them stop selling it, but you can't sue me and make me stop using the one that I bought.
Something like this happened years ago. Kodak came out with an instamatic camera, one that ejected the photo paper when a picture was taken then slowly develops. Polaroid had a patent on this and sued Kodak, Kodak lost and was required to either issue a refund for those who bought the camera or exchange the camera for a Polaroid camera. The only reason to keep the camera was as a collector's item, they wouldn't be able to use it because Kodak could not sell the photo paper and the camera was incompatible with Polaroid's paper. Something similar probably would happen here with software. While a user might decide to keep it they very well may find they can't get support for it, at least not legally.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well said. But what is even more effective: support those who fight against software patenting. The GPLv3 is just a tool to trigger the debate. It is software engineers which need to kick the layers out.
Microsoft is at its heart a parasitic entity, whose only purpose is to maximize its profits, which means maximizing income with the minimum amount of effort. Already we see that real software innovation has moved elsewhere. For example, if it weren't from external pressure from open source software like Mozilla, Microsoft would have stopped development on IE completely. An even better model for them would be simply to have others do the development at no cost to Microsoft, and then for them to charge users for the use of this software, via software patents, etc.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
i can't see how they could hold a valid patent on smb when it was developed at IBM, prior art people. this sounds a lot like extortion money to me - pay us or we will open our obvious patent's war chest on you.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
M$ can't bully Uncle Sam. If they are extorting companies, I'm sure that their legal counsel is secretly complaining to the DOJ.
Oh but MS has bullied, er bought off, the government. The Clinton admin's Department of Justice had MS on the ropes. Then comes along the Bush admin and they let MS off without even a slap on the wrist. What puzzles me about this is that Texas was one of the first state governments to file a lawsuit against MS and they filed while Bush was governor of Texas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
In some network neighborhoods, that may work for
a while. Over time, if GPL is not available,
eventually BSD will be subverted because of microtaxes.
GPL actually helps keep BSD freer than otherwise.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Microsoft are probably offering their bigger corporate customers the chance to buy a patent licence so that they can continue to use Samba while Microsoft attempt to sue the pants off whoever wrote samba.
The reason they're doing this is because from watching SCO, Microsoft fully expect to be able to drag the litigation out for years, during the early round of which they will get a restraining order on the samba developers hence no upgrades. They will then release some windows update "security patch" to Exchange that just concidentally happens to make the current Samba incomaptable.
The only people that will then get Samba upgrades legally will be those licenced to Microsoft. It may even be Microsoft themselves that release the fixes in a fake show of support for Opensource to placate the EU.
everyone would just assume the shooter was a Windows Vista user.
OTOH, publicly traded companies are required to list all liabilities including those from law suits or potential law suits. If they are hushing it up, they may be violating exchange rules or SEC regs.
Which is why MS is able to get away with bullying. A business may pay MS to make lawsuits "go away", once they pay MS the possibility of a lawsuit filed against them by MS goes away. It's when they don't buckle under that they have to report the possibility of a lawsuit filed by MS.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Even the guys saying this stuff wouldn't think twice about having a beer with you.
Would it be a free beer?
*Dodges chairs and shots in the head*
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
...society just needs to revolt against the "company store" mindset. Corporations are not ever supposed to have gotten so important as to be so thoroughly entrenched into society that they become an obnoxious threat.
It is way past the time with that despicable company. There are a few out there that are the epitome of sleaze and greed, enron, exxon, haliburton/kbr, the media companies represented by the MAFIAA price fixing cartel come to mind.
And Microsoft.
I applaud the foreign nations who are actively resisting and moving away from them as much as possible. Regrettably, I know the USA will be the last to see the light on how they are dragging down and ruining the computer scene, they are well past any sort of usefulness for society. All they represent now is economic inertia and "the big skim".
For the past several years now I have expected nothing from them other than severely restrictive, over priced buggy bloatware, being pushed in the sleaziest manner possible-and I certainly haven't been disappointed in the least, they nail it every chance they get. And what is worse-you can't "vote with your wallet". You as an individual can decide to not use their stuff, but that doesn't stop some piece of all your tax money and some piece of the cost of everything you buy winding its way back into their already stuffed to the seams bursting wallets.
That is a clear sign when some corporation has just gotten too large and too intrusive and too greedy and too powerful, when you can't even avoid them when you want to.
The original icon with bill the borg was just so right-on. In fact, it's worse, imagine a corporate society that took the worst they could find from ferengi society and the borg and combined them, that's MS.
The only people I feel sorry for are the ones stuck working there in this economy, because they need a job that can pay the bills. I know there has to be a lot of folks there who know full well that "things are just not right", but are stuck for a handy alternative.
Perhaps those folks and any non-greed filled stockholders can turn that company around back to being useful and ethically straight-not just "profitable", I mean ethically straight. No one really minds honest decent companies, and no one really minds if someone makes a buck, but people do mind and do notice once companies have gone off the deep end into uncontrolled spasms of pure greed.
Yes, Balmer, someone does need to "take the food off your plate", you and your slobbering yes-men are overstuffed bullies and just plain rude and obnoxious in my opinion.
Put the damn fork down and push away from the table, haven't you gorged enough? Is society now supposed to fund your computing vomitorium so you can keep eating at the economic trough well past any semblance of normalcy and decency? Did you ever stop to think that yes, it IS possible to be civil in our civilization?
No - I don't think so. Preaching to the converted who already use the licence is not going to have any effect at all on the US Patent office or your elected officials. The way to resolve the broken patent or copyright system of a country is to appeal to the goverment of the country - not just complain to people that are already on your side. If government corruption makes it harder to get heard without money that means working hard and using other means to get heard like talking to as many elected officials as possible - but they won't be reading the GPL so that won't help.
Of course they want to keep it quiet. Because unlike any other company, if MS were to be exposed at doing such a thing, they'd be buried under anti-trust lawsuits.
I hope it any of that story is true, that one of the people who are being threatened will draw a line in the sand, and blow the whole thing open.
- A lot of Free Software uses GCC extensions.
- GCC supports more architectures.
- GCC supports things like C++, Objective-C, ADA, FORTRAN, etc. If you're going to install GCC for non-C languages, you may as well use it for C too.
It is, however, possible to build a BSD system without GCC. It's just not necessarily sensible...I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I know of TenDRA and the 4.3BSD-Reno pcc, what's the other one?
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Reports of a hostage-taking in Redmond, Washington say that an unidentified man has taken several Microsoft employees hostage and has issued demands for bug fixes as well as the return of Clippy.
"I want system-modal Ok-Cancel dialogs to stop being buried under other dialogs," said the statement released by the man. "I want spyware completely removed from my computer and I want my registry to be less fragile."
"But most of all, I want Clippy back in MS Office. Clippy would have helped me write a better list of hostage-taker's demands."
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Wow. Your post shows a lot of ignorance. OS X has a kernel API for implementing new filesystems which is similar to BSDs although using opaque structures with accessor "methods" rather than direct access to structure data. It was apparently good enough for Amit Singh to implement FUSE on top of which now allows any Linux FS that can run under FUSE to be readily ported.
UNIX of course depends on what variant but at the very worst they all have some sort of NFS client so you could theoretically run a localhost-only NFS server to expose your filesystem to the kernel. Some UNIX and UNIX-clones like linux are open source so anything can be done.
And finally, we come to Windows. I know for a FACT that Windows has supported pluggable network filesystems for a long time now. What do you think Novell Client32 is? Sure, it's a GINA replacement for login but it also is a "filesystem redirector". It makes \\SERVERNAME\SHARENAME\... try the NetWare File Protocol on SERVERNAME before deferring to MS's CIFS.
And as others have mentioned, there is OpenAFS which does something similar.
I think the real problem is that most developers would rather deal with Windows remotely. Writing a CIFS server using your favorite development platform (generally some type of UNIX) is a lot nicer than writing a network redirector for several versions of windows. These days though it's probably easier because almost everything now is of the NT lineage so one versioni with maybe a few conditionals should be sufficient.
Still, it's worth pointing out that Novell has dropped support for NT4 and doesn't yet support Vista. Samba works with all of them.
This article, along with the other I just read quoting Bill Gates as claiming that "security experts" are producing Mac exploits "every day" that "totally take over your [Mac] machine" (I mean, WTF!), clearly demonstrates both that Bill Gates is a deliberate LIAR (as I have reiterated on Slashdot for years) and that Microsoft is a CORRUPT, ILLEGAL pseudo-monopoly and EXTORTION RACKET that needs to be put out of business NOW by any means necessary.
Microsoft and its management make Enron look like Greenpeace and Consumer Reports combined.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
SSHFS and other SSH-based file exchange systems (like the SFTP plugin that most modern desktops like KDE and GNOME have) are very good for the single-user clients.
/home dir with SMB. Either all users will have the same access and could access each-others data (because the /home directory is entirely accessed with 1 single username:password), or you'll have to mount each subdir inside /home individually (each one accessing its corresponding resource with the right of the user owning the home-dir)
/home directory. When a given user wants to access some files on the share, the client transmits the username to the server and the user has only some restricted rights on the files. User can't peek at each others files, even if they all access the same mount-point, because their not accessing it with mount-point-wide access credential.
Where they fail and NFS is the only one close to a solution, is in the case of a multi-user clients.
With SMB/CIFS, SSHFS/SFTP, etc... when several users on a client machine want to access a resource, each one has to mount/connect to it separately, so each individual mount/connection is accessing the resource using different access right (each user connects with it own username:password, and each one has a different set of access and sees the same resource differently in his own mount-point).
You *CAN'T* mount a
With NFS you export a whole tree, and the server trusts the client. Access on the resource are done with the rights given to the user on the client. The client *have* to be trusted and to transmit correct usernames.
With this scenario, you can mount the
The problem is when the client *CAN'T* be trusted : for a home lan everything is OK, but for a whole corporation, there's a risk that someone plugs-in a rogue laptop, fires up an NFS client, pretends to be someone else, and access data on a resource using this false identity.
That's why NFSv4 is being developed, and that's why we need some good alternative to SMB/CIFS, even if the casual user who only uses SFTP/SMB doesn't grasp this subtlety.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
so obviously it's just this: they're not finished yet?
It's called AFS, and has quite good open implementations and Kerberos integration. Getting it installed by default on Windows clients is a huge burden, however.
Because it costs money. Do you think MS will be the only company lining up for cash if there is cash to be taken? It will only be the first and not the last, as the rest of the vultures (think big companies and small companies like SCO) flock in to take what they can. And then free software won't be free.
Right now, MS won't dare touch patents in linux, because like the cold war, it will be Mutual Assured Destruction. IBM and some other Linux defenders/MS enemies backs up linux and gives it a hefty patent portfolio with which to threaten MS with. It is a no-win situation.
Companies who pay are suckers and won't reap the promised savings, so why even move from MS?
Paying the mafia in this case is foolish. You are helping them when you don't have to and weakening your own cause. (And being mad at what makes it possible won't do a damn thing. Take the money and instead of putting it in MS's pocket, stick it in a PAC that tries to change the rules in your favor.) Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Is there a patent issue between MS and Linux? From what I have read the problem is with Samba and MS, not Linux. If I uninstall Samba from my servers I'm fine, right??
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
Will the real Linux owner please stand up?
What?
"If Microsoft couldn't patent, say, the intellectual capital in it's latest tools, so that all and sundtry could copy them without any paying back to the inventor, why on earth would Microsoft bother to invent new tools and processes?"
Total stab in the dark here, but ummmm...to make things easier for themselves? The "intellectual capital", whatever that means, is still protected by Copyright. Nobody could claim MS work as their* own. Then, if someone found a better way to do the same thing, there would be ***competition***. Isn't that what "Freedom To Innovate" is? I'm soooo confused.
*this is valid so GN stfu
"Go on. Eat a bug. Go on. Go on. Here's some money. Eat a bug."
I believe there are anti racketeering laws in your USA against just such a shakedown tactic.
All we need is one firm to blow the whistle & M$ is in a world of hurt.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Go work for ANY Microsoft 'Gold Partner' and you'll see how far a company has to open it's behind to get the cheaper licensing. And oh I forgot to mention, they can always come around and change stuff or make a 'friendly request' to implement a solution using their software (and friendly request as in, if you don't we'll pull your status). This is especially true in Gold Partners that provide services to other customers (like hosting companies).
My record: I have worked so far for 5 Gold Partners in Europe and the US and they all have the same 'problem'.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
True free trade is like every other aspect of life. It is a survival of the fitest competition that is advantageous to the fit and to the detrement on the unfit. In the case of economics a free trade environment puts the power in the hands of those with means. One good example of this is the employer and employee relationship in 'right to work' states. There is little or no government intervention and the since the employer has the greatest means and therefore is more fit the employer exploits the unfit to become even more fit.
First, right to work laws by their very nature are an interevention in free trade otherwise the laws wouldn't exist. Having said that though I Googled "right to work" and went through the results without finding a paper that had the cons of these laws. So I then added "pro con" and still didn't get any result, of the ten results on the first page I went through 9 of them but didn't check the tenth one because it was about the abortion debate, that said what the cons of right to work laws are though some gave what are the pros. Now can you provide a link to a research paper that supports your belief that right to work laws only benefit those with the means (and what you mean by "means")?
Direct competition is to the benefit of the consumer and therefore not in the best interest of market leaders.
Agreed! And you don't have real competition if you don't have a free market. Any market with restrictions, other than those that enforce contracts and such, is not a free market. Neither is a market free that has any barrier other than financial, know how, and ability to enter. The closest we come to a free market in the US is in FOOS, or in the illegal drug trade.
Adam Smith believed that the only right that is certain is the right to keep the things that you earn and accumulate. What that means is that Adam Smith and the principle of capitalism supports that idea that you have a right to your luxery vehicle despite the consequences to others.
If you really believe this, I suggest you read Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments . His first sentence in it is "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Can be estimated, however I don't know what some of these costs are, so if some other /.er's could fill in the blanks, please help.
The cost of bringing ONE well-defined issue to court and seeing it all the way through to a verdict of some kind can be estimated at $200,000. Not SCO-style trawling, but one or two concrete issues mixed with the usual absurd claims that get thrown out.
What I want to know is an annual price range for Unix licenses/packages. Then, post the annual costs of some higher-end Oracle packages that probably run on a Unix. Finally, what's the cost of a Windows Server package with lots of CAL's and some support thrown in.
From those estimates you can get a good idea what they are asking for. Not too much, but certainly generating revenue for Microsoft off the normal sales accounting.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If you're writing an article or interviewing someone with a headline of "Microsoft Getting LINUX money", then don't leave in the crap about the Best Fajita house in wherever. DIAF, author, DIAF.
The linux comunite has asked SCO what code was violated what was coppied. Jeromy has claimed he was told that companies are paying Microsoft to use linux in violation of microsoft pattents. OK sure... which pattents? tell us so that we can turn those features off. Tell us so that we can be ip clean... but tell us.
IIRC, It actually helped kill of the instamatic. Yeah, they were hugely profitable, but they could not get their sales volume up. In fact, they plummeted. Nobody wanted to pay the top dollar that Polaroid was charging. The way to maximize their profits would have been to allow kodak to continue and to get a cut of each film sold. But Polaroid elected not to do that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I am going to call 'urban myth' on this one. If I'm wrong all of slashdot can give me virtual noogies as punishment.
1) If a publicly traded company is under real threat of lawsuit, they would have to publicly declare it or face SEC and exchange scrutiny.
2) Now suppose that they pay up quietly. There has to be a paper trail somewhere. Not openly declaring expenses on your balance sheet/share holder report once again may be a violation.
3) There would be dozens of people involved. The CIO, the CIO's staff, possibly a CEO + staff, accountants + a legal team to review any licensing agreement. Multiply by dozens of companies and you have hundreds of people involved, at minimum. No way a secret can be kept for any length of time with that many people involved. One disgruntled accountant is all you need to blow the lid off.
4) Why would they hush it up? Why not proudly proclaim that they have insured that they are in compliance and that they respect IP?
It doesn't add up. There is a much higher likelyhood that Chewbacca is from Endor.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Does that mean you're willing to share your money with the patent holders? Or do you mean sharing like my daughter who thinks sharing means that she gets to use her sister's stuff but not the other way around?
Just for the record, I've had a Mac, and I've gone back. I used it for about six or seven months, but its UI was incompatible with my workflow. (I use a GNU/Linux-based system on an iMac G5 nowadays.)
Look out!
Right...and people believe this?
"Off the record" payments of this sort would likely expose MS and the company doing the paying to various legal actions like: "monopolistic practices", "extortion", "bribery", and violations of the Sarbanes Oxley rules.
Something doesn't smell right with this "story"...it doesn't pass the "critical thinking" test (not that such a test is important for most people).
2. No locking.
3. User permissions too coarse-grained.
Yeah, that argument would make sense except that MS has always had access to the source code for both Linux (all the distros) and Windows (all the versions). So exactly, what improved interoperability is gained here?
What seems more the case, especially in light of all the pushes to both get and enforce SW patents by MS, is that Novell is the new SCO. SCO was a pump-n-dump dragged out for a few extra years with infusions from MS coffers. Novell, whatever the management's intentions or naïvite, is just a replacement platform for MS attack. People stood around and watched while MS tipped the closed source market off a cliff. Now open source has its turn and Novell is the fulcrum.
As with people like Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch for example, they are too rich for the laws to apply to them.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
the best way to avoid paying ms.
Who cares? His choice of language doesn't make him wrong. I find it quite interesting that you chose to attack his use of language instead of his calling for the murder of patent trolls.
Slashdot: Where language is more important than ideas? WTF?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I was thinking of TenDRA, the TACK (used by the Minix C compiler) and LLVM. The 4.3BSD-Reno pcc makes four.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You are missing the point of FOSS: it's all about stealing other people's work, research, ideas, and depriving them of money.
Sure, it's half-assed and poorly written knock-off software. But that's what FOSS and Lunix are all about: tinkering around with technology, rather than being a real IT professional.
Now rather than getting Lunix to auto-detect and auto-configure hardware at least as well as Windows 95, and rather than creating an installer package which will work across multiple Lunix distros (or just getting all the distros to do things the same way)... I'm going to go write another text editor. Because being able to choose from thousands of text editors is far more important than getting my operating system to work better than something Microsoft released over a decade ago. Because FOSS and Lunix are all about choice. And it's also all about chasing Microsoft's tail lights.
And jealousy. Jealousy about not being Microsoft, jealousy about not being big-time. But mostly, it's about chasing those tail lights.
This sounds an awful liot like mafia extortion to me. Pay me and we'll make sure you won't get hurt. Couldn't extortion laws apply here as well?
1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or FEAR, or UNDER COLOR of OFFICIAL RIGHT.
(3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.
...which is the core protocol in Netware, which also can be served quite nicely from a Linux box, and also there already exists a nice IFS plugin for the Windows platform. Novell can open-source the NCP protocol, and all the server and client code and right there we'd have a great cross-platformable network filesystem with which to render SMB/CIFS a moot piece of computer archaeology.
If only Novell would grow a pair of testicles big enough to do that.
How so? Smith is maintaining that your right to a luxury vehicle trumps the right of someone less fortunate to eat. Simply because he doesn't believe you will choose the luxury vehicle over your fellow man doesn't change that.
Can you point to one quote wherein Adam Smith says a life of luxury trumps life? Seems to me you can't have a life of luxury if you can't live.
You are picking a young market. That hardly tells us anything about where a free market ends up. Landline phones started with a series of patents and men with clubs so lets look elsewhere for mature markets. How about soda, tobacco or credit cards.
Ok, let's look at soda. My favorite soda is Steward's Ginger Beer though it used to be something like Oldtime Ginger Beer. Dealing with tobacco, I smoke mostly Nat Sherman's Touch of Clove. As for credit cards in a typical week I may get three or four offers from different companies. Some are American Express, Dinner's Club, Discover, MasterCard, or VISA. I have also had credit cards issued by retail chains. There is no shortage of companies that issue credit cards, actually it pisses me off I get so many offers. To make it harder for someone to steal my id I end up shreading and or burning all of these offers, simply credit card companies make it too easy to steal id. What's worse, at least where I live, is that less than one out of ten people even check id when handed a card or bank check. I know of only one place that consistently checks id, my bank. They even go a step further, when my sister writes a check to me, from a different account at the same bank, the bank calls her to make sure she gave me the check. My brother-in-law gets pissed they call.
FalconShould there be a Law?