Microsoft Agrees to Release Work Group Protocols

UnknowingFool writes "Groklaw is reporting that the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF) has signed an agreement with Microsoft to release their protocols relating to Windows Work Group Server. The Foundation agrees to pay MS $10,000, and the agreement does not cover patents. This agreement apparently was made to somewhat satisfy the EU Commission complaints. With PFIF's objective to aid open source, this agreement means that the Samba Team may finally get the information they need to fully interoperate with Windows AD servers."

Comments

Just another example

[microbee]

that EU did something the US government couldn't.

Re:Just another example

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't or wouldn't? When they were under pressure earlier this decade, Microsoft spent a lot of money lobbying/buying off US state and federal governments, creating fake "grass roots" campaign sites and paying for press releases from pro-corporate lobbyist groups such as the cato institute (source1 source2).

Re:Just another example

[Spy der Mann]

that EU did something the US government wouldn't.

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:Just another example

[wizardforce]

I'd like to think that the EU has a better system for dealing with monopolies although at the same time I can't help but wonder if the fact that Microsoft isn't based there had a lot to do with it. in either case, good job EU! The only thing better would be if they actually had the power to give Microsoft more than a slap on the wrist and used that power if/when Microsoft starts giving anyone trouble.

Re:Just another example

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'd like to think that the EU has a better system for dealing with monopolies although at the same time I can't help but wonder if the fact that Microsoft isn't based there had a lot to do with it.

This might apply for a case within a given EU member state, since politicians can play on anti-americanism, but not so much for EU posts. The EU commission has enforced antitrust regulation against numerous european countries over the past decade. If anything they seem to have gone out of their way to give MS huge amounts of leniency and extra time.

Re:Just another example

[renegadesx]

I agree, the US Govt could have done it but they just wouldn't

Microsoft spends so much on lobying to get what they want its not funny. If the US wanted to split Microsoft in half (which there was talk of many moons ago) the would have, problem is Microsoft pay alot to be near exempt from anti-trust laws. The EU despite no doubt having corruption there too (all govt's have it, just a question of how much), are not as well bought as US congress seems to be.

Re:Just another example

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to imply that there is some difference between the US Government and MicroSoft.
Truly, the only thing more tightly integrated with Windows than Internet Explorer is the Justice Department.
Was that my outside voice?

Re:Just another example

[calebt3]

No. It was you virtual one.

Re:Just another example

[calebt3]

Too many different people/languagos/cultures to buy all at once. In the US you only needto buy-at an absolute most-535 people (on the incorrect assumption that everything needs a unanimous vote to pass).

Re:Just another example

[B3ryllium]

that EU did something the US DOJ couldn't.

There, fixed it for you. :)

Re:Just another example

[tyrione]

that EU did something the US DOJ wouldn't do, on behalf of the current sitting President.

There, I fixed it for you. ;)

Re:Just another example

[Handover Phist]

In Soviet Slashdot...

Re:Just another example

[MadnessASAP]

The PFIF did something that the EU couldn't do and the US (DOJ) wouldn't do on behalf of anyone.

There fixed it for you. :D

Re:Just another example

[elgaard]

Exactly.

The original european verdict against Microsoft (not the resent appeal verdict)
even mentioned the case against Swedish Tetra Pak as an example of a company that was using a monopoly in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another (septic/aseptic packaging).
Tetra Pak got a Euro 75 million fine in 1991.

Re:Just another example

[tepples]

Too many different people/languagos/cultures to buy all at once. In the US you only needto buy-at an absolute most-535 people (on the incorrect assumption that everything needs a unanimous vote to pass). You need to buy 80.2 percent of the House and 81 percent of the Senate to push a bill through. Twenty percent of either house can force a roll-call vote, where each member of the house goes on record as supporting or opposing an act:

the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. But given that the DMCA and the Bono Act were enacted without this record, one can see how clearly bought the U.S. Congress is.

Fully interoperate with the AD

[0racle]

Are you sure about that? Workgroup is often designated as software separate from their Enterprise or Domain integrated stuff. Are you sure that releasing their workgroup protocols includes Active Directory access?

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Yes it includes all AD protocols.

Jeremy.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[ddoctor]

Wow. THE Jeremy Allison. I guess it's not that surprising to see a famous opensourcerer on /. but good to see you involved. This must be MASSIVE news for your team - the years and years of painstaking reverse-engineering and guesswork are over.

Have you guys busted out the champagne, yet?

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[dadragon]

And you can verify it's really him because his user id is so low.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Daengbo]

Off-topic for a second. THIS is why I have continued to suffer the 1:19 signal:noise ratio and goatse trolls on Slashdot since 1997. Especially before the dot bomb, every story had someone directly involved with the situation posting somewhere in the comments.

Got a story about VAX? There are fifteen people with decades of experience on the forum. Bruce Perens is always on any story involving him (sometimes to an annoying level...). You had to know that Jeremy would be posting on this story.

Although less than it used to be, Slashdot still has people I can't see anywhere else. Thank you, Slash!

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

But I *loved* the goatse trolls :-). It used to be the only reason I
came to read /. :-). I miss sig11 and klerk and the rest of that crew.

They made /. fun, especially as they drove taco *nuts* :-).

Anyone remember the Bruce Perens impersonators ? :-).

Jeremy.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Daengbo]

Yeah. Do you remember all the "IAmTheReal..." usernames once impersonation became popular? You never knew who to believe. Hehe. Memories.

Thanks, Jeremy, for continuing to make Slashdot a place worth my time.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Bert64]

How about the proprietary protocols used by exchange and such?
And what about sharepoint? does that rely on any proprietary protocols?

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[weicco]

And what about sharepoint? does that rely on any proprietary protocols?

Yes! Everytime I access our corporate Sharepoint site I have to use at least PPP, Ethernet, IP, TCP and HTTP protocols not to mention about IPSEC and IKE. God I hate that Microsoft!

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Idiot.

Way to go!

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Allador]

Mostly just WebDAV.

The only possible thing in there is the auto-login you get if you use IE from a machine on the same domain as your sharepoint server.

So for example, in FireFox, Sharepoint works fine ... but you get prompted for a login. On IE, you dont get prompted, it just handles it behind the scenes for you (using MS-CHAP v2 I assume, though thats just speculation).

Now, the fancy AJAX and interactive javascript scripting works _much_ better on IE than FireFox, but I'm not sure that falls under 'proprietary protocols'.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Richard_at_work]

Actually, if you set up Sharepoint using host headers (vhosts or whatever), IE *won't* automatically log you in - the site is no longer within the intranet zone, so you have to explicitly set the site up in the Trusted Sites zone, and also turn on the automatic login if you are using IE7. As for the protocol used, its either kerberos or NTLM, dependant on the server configuration.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[Allador]

so you have to explicitly set the site up in the Trusted Sites zone, and also turn on the automatic login if you are using IE7 Assuming they arent rogue sharepoint sites, you just push those settings out via group policy, and make it easy on yourself.

Re:Fully interoperate with the AD

[NightFears]

Thanks from me too. A lot.

So, they can follow the law now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good development! This means SAMBA can now work without violating Microsoft's intelectual property. This must be a FOSSie first, right?

Re:So, they can follow the law now?

[calebt3]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, reverse engineering for compatibility purposes is legal. IIRC, that's why OOo is able to handle .doc.

Re:So, they can follow the law now?

[LionMage]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, reverse engineering for compatibility purposes is legal.

Totally legal in the United States. In other jurisdictions, the law is not so clear-cut. In Europe, the right to reverse engineer is not sacrosanct. Then again, Europe doesn't (yet) have software patents.

Standard IANAL disclaimers apply, of course, but I've worked for several companies that relied on reverse engineering precisely for the purpose of compatibility with undocumented file formats. In one such company, I was informed by management (after advice from legal counsel) that it was actually legal not only to reverse engineer the file format, but it was even legal to reverse engineer / decompile the code for the application that generated the files in order to see how they were written -- the caveat being, you could only reverse engineer the code to insure compatibility, not to plagiarize it. (Usually you do a clean room reverse engineering process to insure that the people who reverse engineer the code write a clean spec that the people who write your code then use. The people doing the reverse engineering shouldn't be writing code based on that process, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.) Of course, that particular employer's policy was to not reverse engineer the code of the applications themselves, only the files they wrote, but if we had the resources and we needed to, we could reverse engineer just about anything we wanted.

The legal climate in the U.S. was shaped in part by the outcome of a case where IBM sued Compaq for reverse engineering the BIOS of the IBM PC. Clearly, Compaq prevailed, and the clone PC market was born.

Re:So, they can follow the law now?

[jabuzz]

Reverse engineering is legally protected within the E.U. courtesy of directive 92/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs. In the UK this is implemented in the Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992 No.3233). Basically I get to reverse engineer any hardware/hardware, hardware/software or software/software interface.

Apart from EMCA bits to do with circumventing *effective* copyright protection, I am aware of nothing that overrides this directive.

$10,000!?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

How could Microsoft pass up that offer!?

Re:$10,000!?

[Plug]

It's actually 10,000 Euro. That's a $14,333.65 windfall for the Redmond current account!

Re:$10,000!?

[EvilRyry]

It's not so much a price as its worth to Microsoft as much as it is a fee to keep the protocol out of the hands of the average Joe. It's a move mostly aimed at open source I'd imagine.

Re:$10,000!?

[Allador]

Not really. The PFIF's sole purpose is to pay MS and then give access to that information to open-source developers.

It does keep it out of the hands of hobby or low-end commercial developers, but not open source ones.

Finally?

[willyhill]

Actually, the Samba team already received the documentation from Microsoft.

Re:Finally?

[Anonymous Coward]

already received Your linky points to a page dated today...

WTF are you talking about?

Re:Finally?

[calebt3]

Read the summary again:

this agreement means that the Samba Team may finally get the information they need to fully interpenetrate with Windows AD servers The link says that they agreement to receive the info has already been made.

Re:Finally?

[sepluv]

Right, but according to Jeremy Allison on the podcast he hasn't seen them with his own eyes yet, so I think the may was reasonable.

They need more information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had any problem working with windows domains in about a year. Whatever the current version that comes with Ubuntu seems to work out of the box.

Re:They need more information?

[MightyMartian]

Active Directory certainly is limited in Samba. Now imagine Samba sufficiently AD-esque that it could be used as a DC for an Exchange 2003 member server.

Re:They need more information?

[lukas84]

Even then, doing so would be really, really stupid, as such a setup won't be supported by anyone :)

Using Samba as a fully-fledged fileserver would be a start, but currently doesn't support any of the advanced features like DFS-R.

Then again, using Windows as a fileserver works well, and isn't that expensive.

I've never really understood why i'd want to use a Linux server with Windows clients - it just doesn't work all that good, causes way more headaches than you save in terms of money.

Re:They need more information?

[jabuzz]

I bet the PostPath guys would...

Re:They need more information?

[WebCowboy]

I haven't had any problem working with windows domains in about a year.

Samba has been able to participate fully iin *NT style* domains for a very long time now--I have a Linux box acting as a PDC that runs a domain that authenticates against linux LDAP and takes care of roaming profiles (so my desktop settings, preferences, etc follow users between machines).

Samba also, for quite some time, has allowed Linux (and MacOS X and other UNIX-style systems) to PARTICIPATE in Active Directory domains as clients or "member servers"--that is, it can connect to and authenticate against a Windows 2003 Server domain controller. This development would've made such a feat possible much quicker than it actually took to happen, but the Samba team did manage this very notable feat.

What remains elusive today is the ability for Samba to act as the AD domain controller itself. Developers have been struggling to make this functional and reliable enough in the alpha releases of Samba v4.0 and have had some modest success, but it seems that progress has been quite slow to this point. You can set up Samba 4.0 today and get AD clients to participate in that domain, but major issues remain. I'm thrilled that MS has finally been goaded into disclosing vitally needed information for providing interoperability, and that although there is still a one-time licensing fee and a bullsh!t NDA required to get the specs the source code that results can remain GPL and free from stupid IP encumbrances. This means that not only should Samba 4 progress much faster now, but that if it's written well other parties can learn MSFT's bastardised standards through studying Samba's source without involving their own NDA crap.

Merry Christmas Samba team, love your new present!

Re:They need more information?

[WebCowboy]

I've never really understood why i'd want to use a Linux server with Windows clients - it just doesn't work all that good, causes way more headaches than you save in terms of money.

I use a Linux server with Windows clients and haven't found it to be all that burdensome--it certainly works just as well as NT or 2000 did as a non-AD PDC...and for a small outfit Windows Server licensing is a significant investment. Wherever Samba doesn't work well as a server you can almost exclusively blame it on the fact that MSFT kept the specs secret and Samba had to do its best to reverse-engineer them. With the specs now available to Samba developers their project should work much better as a server in the near future.

As for why you'd want to use Samba as an AD member server or domain controller, there is far more than licensing and maintenance costs to consider. Linux with Samba has much smaller resource requirements--you need not load in a GUI or extra cruft that MS has welded to Windows Server (you will not be able to do that with Windows Server until a future release). There are also more security, remote admin, etc. choices available for Linux that are free (and Free). Last but not least, there are more viruses, worms and trojans that compromise Windows appearing in the wild in a day than have existed for Linux in its entire history. Invulnerability to malware is a pretty valuable characteristic for a system that is as critical as a domain controller or major server.

That last reason has to be the most important reason to run a non-Microsoft AD server--a "diverse ecosystem" is important overall, but it is probably most important to have a diverse array of architectures in the server space, because that is where a malware outbreak can cause the worst disruption.

Re:They need more information?

[lukas84]

I use a Linux server with Windows clients and haven't found it to be all that burdensome And how do you e.G. deploy Windows updates (WSUS), provide Office document versioning (Sharepoint), Groupware that is fully integrated with Microsoft Office (Exchange) or a fully integrated IM & VoIP Solution (Office Communication Server)?

and for a small outfit Windows Server licensing is a significant investment No, it isn't. Microsoft's Small Business Server offering is dirt cheap - nothing compared to the manhours required to setup a Windows OR Linux solution.

Linux with Samba has much smaller resource requirements Reusing old desktops isn't what i'd want in a corporate IT environment. But you can run a WS2003 DC on pretty much anything with a hard disk and 256MB memory.

Invulnerability to malware is a pretty valuable characteristic for a system that is as critical as a domain controller or major server. Most of the vulnerabilities that exist for Windows do not affect Windows servers (e.G. any IE or Office exploit doesn't matter on a server, because you don't surf or edit documents on them). Nonetheless, Windows's history ain't the best, but MS has shown very big improvements in the past few years.

but it is probably most important to have a diverse array of architectures in I disagree. The more complexity a system has, the higher is the chance that a security vulnerability is introduced. Remember, security is not only dependent upon Software, but also upon Configuration.

Re:They need more information?

[Allador]

I've never really understood why i'd want to use a Linux server with Windows clients - it just doesn't work all that good, causes way more headaches than you save in terms of money. It's all about the skills of the people you have access to.

Better to run a Samba situation if all you have are linux gurus. Better that than have people completely unfamiliar with windows try to setup a windows system securely and reliably. That tends to not work well.

Likewise, if you have access to folks with windows experience, and you're a primarily or all windows shop, then that works well.

In general, better to have a slightly weird configuration (samba servers, windows clients) if its managed and configured well by people who know what they're doing, than a normal configuration thats managed poorly.

Re:They need more information?

[lukas84]

I'm sorry, but your point doesn't make that much sense to me. If you have folks that are "completely unfamiliar" with Windows, i wouldn't want them to administrate Servers OR Clients. You'll get a security nightmare either way.

Re:They need more information?

[WebCowboy]

And how do you e.G. deploy Windows updates (WSUS), provide Office document versioning (Sharepoint), Groupware that is fully integrated with Microsoft Office (Exchange) or a fully integrated IM & VoIP Solution (Office Communication Server)?

Dude, if you've drank THAT much MSFT kool-aid then you're very VERY far off from considering Linux seriously for anything! In any case, with the specs provided to the Samba team, they could produce file and printer sharing servers and AD domain controllers that fully participate in that infrastructure. BTW, Typically you wouldn't put WSUS, sharepoint, Exhange and Communication Server on a Windows Server configured as a domain controller (in fact I don't think MSFT will even take your support call in that kind of setup). you COULD however, eventually use modestly-specced Linux machines with Samba 4 as your AD servers and have ALL of the above as member servers on the Samba domain. Furthermore, third parties can now develop their own competing or complementary systems and be "full citizens" of the Network Neighbourhood.

As far as everything you mentioned here, there are non-MSFT (and sometime Free/open source) alternates to ABSOLUTELY ALL of the services you mention with the exception of WSUS. For example there is a brand-new add-on for the GPLed Citadel groupware system that makes it a full replacement for MS Exchange. Subversion can be used for document revision control. There are solutions based upon Asterisk that do what Office communication server can do. Citadel can be set up in a fraction of the time it takes to set up Exchange, and you can buy asterisk "appliances" that plug-and-play for much cheaper than the MSFT solution.

No, it isn't. Microsoft's Small Business Server offering is dirt cheap - nothing compared to the manhours required to setup a Windows OR Linux solution.

"Dirt cheap" is a relative term. Free is definitely cheaper than $600, and if you have more than 5 user you have to spend $500 more, and the mandatory licensing costs go up incrementally from there, whereas Samba remains free. For a non-profit org office or struggling small business with 6 to 20 users the difference is enough to be of concern. Furthermore you can set up a domain controller in a few hours using either solution, so unless you value your time in the multiple-hundreds of dollars hourly then licensing costs are indeed significant.

Reusing old desktops isn't what i'd want in a corporate IT environment.

Nor what I'd like, but it can and does happen...it is in fact common practice to use old hardware in many corporate environments (sadly, far beyond what makes economic sense in too many cases).

But you can run a WS2003 DC on pretty much anything with a hard disk and 256MB memory.

It's pretty sad nowadays that people brag about needing "only" 256MB as somehow being efficient. Samba would perform equally well with 128MB of RAM. Conversely more current hardware could handle more users under a properly-tuned Samba server than using Windows Server 2003.

Most of the vulnerabilities that exist for Windows do not affect Windows servers

A significant portion of vulnerabilities do nonetheless. Unfortunately, some of the most aggressive of the malware out there are the opposite--they are most destructive on servers and have little to no effect on a workstation or home machine. Code Red and Slammer come to mind (they affected server products like IIS and SQL Server that are not widely deployed or included with client machines). Windows Server is probable the most hazardous of all the Windows flavours in this regard: users on clients do stupid things and infect files which they save onto servers, where the most damaging delivery vectors are launched when the server is in turn infected.

I disagree. The more complexity a system has, the higher is the chance that a security vulnerability is introduced. Remember, security is not only dependent upon Software, but also upon Configurati

Re:They need more information?

[lukas84]

Dude, if you've drank THAT much MSFT kool-aid then you're very VERY far off from considering Linux seriously for anything! Hey, i could say the same. I've made my share of experiences, and i think that many of the products that MS releases are pretty good on solving real business problems without being too expensive. That doesn't mean that i hate Linux. I've made very good experiences with using Linux in Network infrastructure (Routing, Packetfiltering, VPN, etc.) and Webserving (mostly LAMP). I've also had Linux on my primary desktop for about two years (which changed when i got a job).

BTW, Typically you wouldn't put WSUS, sharepoint, Exhange and Communication Server on a Windows Server configured as a domain controller I'd never think about doing this. It'd be pretty stupid and a nightmare to maintain. In my testsetup i'm running OCS and SPS on the same OS instance, and that alone causes enough problems.

and have ALL of the above as member servers on the Samba domain And fight with the compatibility nightmare? Why? To save 1200 bucks in WS2003 Std Licensing costs?

Citadel can be set up in a fraction of the time it takes to set up Exchange Aww, come on. I can live with all your others comments, but this is just plain FUD.

For a non-profit org office or struggling small business with 6 to 20 users the difference is enough to be of concern. I disagree. I primarely work for Small Businesses. SBS with 5 users costs about 700 CHF here. My company charges 185.- CHF for each hour i work (which is a pretty reasonable rate, Switzerland has a very high salary niveau), so an SBS License equals 4 working hours of an on-site technician. That's not much money in my book.

It's pretty sad nowadays that people brag about needing "only" 256MB as somehow being efficient My mobile phone has 256MB RAM. A standard Lenovo desktop ships with 2GB RAM. 256MB is nothing. We're at the end of 2007, not 2001.

Code Red and Slammer come to mind That was ages ago, and both only applied to machines that weren't kept up to date.

You then also disagree with notable industry experts. Yeah. I do, even though hat you say is correct - but it doesn't apply to smaller Businesses, with an extremely low risk of targetted attacks, and just not enough spare change to maintain multiple platforms just for the sake of adding resilience against something that will likely never happen.

Wouldn't you think, in an Active Directory situation, if you had a mix of Windows and Samba AD domain controllers handling your domains it would be more robust in an attack? I think it would be a support nightmare. I'm sure MS won't support it, and the OSS World/Samba folks just can't - because they don't have access to the MS side of things.

Re:They need more information?

[Allador]

Unfortunately, some of the most aggressive of the malware out there are the opposite--they are most destructive on servers and have little to no effect on a workstation or home machine. Code Red and Slammer come to mind (they affected server products like IIS and SQL Server that are not widely deployed or included with client machines). That was bad, but the industry changed. Microsoft's products changed. You just wont see things like that anymore. Slammer in particular, was so bad not because of all the SQL Server installs on servers, but because of the millions of unknown MSDE installs on desktops/laptops.

The products of the CodeRed & Slammer days are very different from those released and deployed now.

You then also disagree with notable industry experts. A monocultural infrastructure might be "simple" and easy to configure, but it is impossible to make any system completely invulnerable, and when a vulnerability is exploited in a monocultural system it can completely wipe it out. Many experts in the field believe the risks of this universal vulnerability of a system to various exploits far outweigh the benefits of the simplicity in managing a single-platform solution. Notable industry experts are not very impressive.

This theory is one of those that sounds great on paper, and sells lots of books and conference keynotes, but doesnt really work in reality.

Even in large orgs with centrally managed everything, when there are outbreaks of things, its always unit by unit, some units within the org get hit, some dont. Happens over and over. One set of servers gets hit, the others dont.

It just doesnt work the way Greer describes in reality. Even in an homogenous system, there are sufficient differences between groups and departments to make it a moot point.

Wouldn't you think, in an Active Directory situation, if you had a mix of Windows and Samba AD domain controllers handling your domains it would be more robust in an attack? It would dramatically reduce the chance that a single exploit could knock out all your domain controllers at once and essentially knock out your whole network. It wouldnt help you much at all. Unless you're using tokens, smart-cards, etc ... then once the first dc was compromised, and the first domain-admin or enterprise-admin account was compromised, its all over. They own the keys to your world.

Attacks these days arent about 'knocking out' machines. They're about getting stealthy ownership and using them for profit.

Re:They need more information?

[Allador]

Well, you asked why people do it, and thats why. Whether it makes sense to you or not, even whether it is logical or not, thats the primary reason why people do it, that I've seen.

That's akin to

[TheDarkener]

Telling someone the punchline of a joke after they beat you to it.

Re:That's akin to

[sepluv]

That's the point I'm a little confused about. I fully understand that Samba decided to continue propping up the EC's prosecution (after all the other witnesses...ahem...changed their minds about testifying) of Microsoft as a matter of principle as the victim of a crime (rather than necessarily to be compensated in any way), but, I am assuming (even though they didn't pay for it themselves) this information must be worth something to them still (despite how well Samba currently works) and the PFIF apparently thinks it is worth 10 000 (which might be donated to the Samba developers for reverse engineering or something instead). Maybe someone with knowledge of Samba development (rather than the legal cases) fill me in on what they need from this data.

Re:That's akin to

[ozmanjusri]

Maybe someone with knowledge of Samba development

You'll be disappointed. They don't use Lisp.

Most importantly though,

Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols That means Microsoft must tell Samba which patents apply to the protocols, and keep telling them. The developers will be able to avoid any patent traps.

Re:That's akin to

[Anonymous Coward]

> That means Microsoft must tell Samba which patents apply to the protocols, and keep telling them. The developers will be able to avoid any patent traps.

Those patents apply only in the US.

Hello from EU by the way ;) Believe or not, Novell/MS deal was like godsent boost for Linux here. As we don't have braindead software patents here - stuff like Mono (+ those "evil" patented apis) and OpenXML support etc, do only good here.

Shame that you guys there have to suffer from software patents ;) Even if EU would approve software patents later it wouldn't really matter (As everything before that point would go under 'prior art' and they would need to come up with new stuff and they couldn't apply for all these insane "innovations" they have patented now)

Re:That's akin to

[sepluv]

Actually, in practice, we do have quite a lot of software patents on the books, they just aren't legally valid. That doesn't stop lawyers, judges, the European Patent Office and member state's government (especially those that wish to cosy other to the US) trying to enforce them illegally.

Even if EU would approve software patents later it wouldn't really matter

It would. The proposed directive the European Patent Office and European Commission where trying to get through that was defeated by the European Parliament would have done exactly that: retroactively grant validity to invalid patents illegally granted by the patent office.

Re:That's akin to

[tepples]

On Slashdot, Anonymous Coward wrote:

Those patents apply only in the US. Slashdot is hosted in the United States. When will your country start granting asylum to refugees from software patent regimes?

works just long enough

[FudRucker]

this will work just long enough for microsoft to update some software or release the next version, then what? another 10 grand?

Re:works just long enough

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Section 3 is where Microsoft promises to provide the documentation that we need. It deals with the timeliness of that documentation, how errors in the documentation will be dealt with, how and when updates will be provided and what type of technical support will be provided."

WSPP Documentation - Updates.
3.2
(a) General. Microsoft will make updated WSPP Documentation for modified and new WSPP Protocols (that are added to WSPP after Microsoft initially provides WSPP Documentation to Licensee under Section 3.1) available for license by Licensee under this Agreement:
(i) if applicable, upon release of the First Beta for the relevant Service Pack to the relevant product, or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol (documentation provided in such instance, a "Preliminary Documentation Update"), or
(ii) if no such First Beta is released, then at least 15 days before the : (A) commercial release of the Service Pack to the relevant product (i.e., Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System), or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol, or
(B) the day on which the final version of any other Update is released. "First Beta" means the first public beta testing version of the Service Pack or new version of the relevant Windows operating system product made available by Microsoft via an MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network) subscription offering or of which 150,000 or more copies are distributed. Licensee will be given automatic access to the WSPP Documentation for any Licensed Protocol modifications made available under this Section 3.2, for no additional charge beyond the License Fee. Licensee will be given access to the WSPP Documentation for any other WSPP Protocol modifications or any new WSPP Protocols pursuant to the process described in Section 3.1(b)(ii), for no additional charge beyond the License Fee.
(b) Preliminary Documentation Updates. When a Preliminary Documentation Update is made available to Licensee, Microsoft will also make the WSPP Documentation for the commercially released version of the relevant Service Pack or new product version (such documentation, a "Final Documentation Update") available to Licensee within 15 days after the relevant date production is authorized for the manufacture of copies of software for commercial availability. THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3.3(a) AND 6.3 DO NOT APPLY TO PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, BUT DO APPLY TO FINAL DOCUMENTATION UPDATES. SINCE THE FIRST BETA CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMERCIALLY RELEASED VERSION, LICENSEE IS ADVISED THAT THERE ARE RISKS IN ANY RELIANCE ON PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT LICENSEE INCURS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR ANY OTHER COSTS AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELIANCE, IT DOES SO AT ITS OWN RISK.
(c) Availability. Once a protocol becomes a WSPP Protocol under the WSPP, Microsoft will continue to make WSPP Documentation for that protocol available during the Term. Subject to the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement requires Microsoft to (i) deliver any WSPP Documentation for any modified or new protocol other than as provided in this Section 3.2 or (ii) continue to implement any WSPP Protocol in any Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System. However, Microsoft will provide notice to Licensee in the relevant portion of the WSPP Documentation of WSPP Protocols that remain available for license but which are no longer used by Microsoft in Windows Client and Server Operating Systems, generally in accordance with the timeframe in Section 3.2(a)(i).

and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[russ1337]

Good news for Samba. Still listening to that audio link, but it's interesting that the Samba team aren't allowed to release the information they receive, just use it for developing OSS.

I'm sure Microsoft will use this in their 'we support open source' campaign. (I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11)

Doesn't cross license patent's, but Microsoft does have to provide a full list the patents that they believe Samba infringes. This allows Samba guys to code around it. Good news for them.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[calebt3]

I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11 The OSs may be unsupported, but the code is still used.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> (I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11)

How could they? They still use the damn code!

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[dlevitan]

I'm sure Microsoft will use this in their 'we support open source' campaign. (I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11) This'll never happen. Even if they completely change the codebase. Think about how many bugs there are in the Windows codebase that haven't been discovered yet. Think about how many of those bugs probably pertain to the design of the code (and may well be carried over into a completely different codebase). What would happen if MS released the Windows ME codebase as open source? The 1.5% of users out there still using Windows 98/Me are probably going to be hacked in about 5 minutes and Windows 2000/XP/Vista users will follow soon afterwards.

No, much as it might help OSS projects if MS released their code, it would be a disaster security wise and even I don't want to see it happen.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[AnyoneEB]

I know this sounds like a troll, but, seriously: do you really believe any of those 1.5% of users still running Windows 9x/ME aren't rooted already?

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[calebt3]

Boxen owned by /. readers for the sake of having a 9x/ME box that they can practice on for when they troubleshoot their obsolete relative's system. May be a Virtual Machine or dual-booted with Slackware because that is the only other OS (besides DOS) that can use the same specs.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Not: "Microsoft does have to provide a full list the patents that they believe Samba infringes."

Rather: MS must provide a full list of all patents that apply to this work.

That Samba infringes is only FUD. (But insightful FUD).

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Samba is irrelivant now that it is GPLv3. If they added any active directory stuff that really worked, it will never show up in a router, home server or those home NAS boxes. Only batshit crazy companies with a death wish will use it now.

Shame, really.

(posted anon because this will get modded into the ground)

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fluxbuntu?

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Nimey]

Most VM programs have "snapshots" which revert the machine state after a reboot. If you're using something with such poor security on the Internet, it's almost a must-have.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not agree.

Microsoft can keep their lead over the protocol and the free software community is always one step behind. Why? You can't force Microsoft to accept new features, but they can force them in other implementations like samba.

They will cry crocodile tears how bad the world is. In practice, the relevant parts of the protocol (printing and file exchange) are already available.

But with the release of the spec a Microsoft controlled technology will spread wider. So the whole story is a pyrrhic victory.

/dev/tank

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[Kihaji]

Actually, I bet none of them are for a couple of reasons. 1) These are machines that do very little if anything on a network. They are usually those boxes that sit in "mom's office" for her to do home accounting, and if they are on the net, they do email and some web with very very old browsers. And 2)Thier libraries are so old that the attack vectors modern virus/worms use just don't exist.

Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure...

[marcosdumay]

"I'm sure Microsoft will use this in their 'we support open source' campaign."

Well, for the first time they'll be encoraging interoperability. What is the problem of them bragging about something that is true?

It is much better than bragging about something that isn't, like they use to do.

Good

[Psychotria]

I am somewhat dubious, but this /could/ mean that I may finally be able to convince my workplace to adopt more linux workstations. I for one will work on samba if the allusions made by the summary are true. I say this because, all other issues aside, Windows interoperability really is an issue where I work.

Re:Good

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Yes they're true. Please help us. See here :

http://samba.org/samba/devel/

for details.

Thanks

Jeremy.

Re:Good

[Psychotria]

Jeremy, consider it done. I have holidays, so am looking for a project to hook my teeth into. Thanks for the link. Craig

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you going to revert your license to GPLv2 or BSD so we *can* help you? GPLv3 kinda cuts off your market for "developers willing to help on somebody else's dime" does it not?

Re:Good

[Ultra64]

So are you going to revert your license to GPLv2 or BSD so we *can* help you? GPLv3 kinda cuts off your market for "developers willing to help on somebody else's dime" does it not?

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

So where can I find the documentation?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Taking a quick look at the agreement, it looks like PFIF can't release the documentation to the public. So, as a user of Samba, if I find a bug in Samba's handling of the protocols, how do I fix it? If I have to rely on the "Samba Team" to fix the problem, this isn't much better than source-available proprietary software---I'm still tied to a single vendor.

Let's be serious, they're still confidential, proprietary protocols, aren't they? Way to go, Microsoft.

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

They way it will work is as follows. We'll read the docs and work on creating client-side test cases and embedding them into Samba4 smbtorture. Once that's in place, any competent engineer can create the server-side implementation without having to have access to the actual docs. We need the test cases anyway (remember, untested code is broken code), so this is the way we've been going about doing things anyway. This should just open up new protocols and new protocol areas to implementation by others.

Jeremy.

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I don't mean to belittle your work, which is important, but I want to pre-empt Microsoft salesmen who might decide to point to this as evidence that Microsoft protocols are as open as, say, NFSv4.

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it works that way.

As it says MS still owns the patents, and the 10,000 was just to look at the protocols, and not share them, does this mean MS lawyers can ask for 10,000 more if someone wants to use them?

I have noticed that once or twice in the past, MS lawyers have not been as nice as I might wish.

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[Nimey]

ISAGN. Cognate with "free as in beer" and "free as in speech", we should have a saying like "open as in goatse".

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[John Hasler]

Just ask him where you can download the specs from.

Re:So where can I find the documentation?

[John Hasler]

Since this is Slashdot where no one ever reads the original article I will repost my Groklaw comments here:

1) PFIF should try to produce at least one reference implementation of each
protocol that is heavily commented and designed to be clear and straightforward
rather than fast and efficient. These can serve as documentation for those who
cannot or will not sign the NDA.

2) A group (completely seperate from and independent of PFIF) should be formed
to "inverse engineer" the above-mentioned reference implementations
and produce Free documentation for the protocols.

3) Wherever it makes sense to do so the protocols as documented in 2) should be
entered into the standards process to become ISO standards.

4) People should be encouraged (though not, officially, by PFIF) to spend time
working with PFIF (and make real contributions), wait out their 90 days, and
join the effort proposed in 2). They should, of course, work entirely from
memory.

The Samba team has also come up with the excellent idea of creating and publishing test suites for each protocol. If Microsoft's implementations fail the tests Microsoft will have some explaining to do

I'm not understanding something...

[idontgno]

If the licensed documentation is under non-disclosure terms, but the source code is still freely distributable....

what's the point to the documentation not being disclosable?

Talk about pointless legalese...

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[calebt3]

Legalese was not designed with FOSS in mind.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[sepluv]

I suppose so proprietary software developers have to pay them the 10 000 again (or pay Samba for a non-GPL license), although an X11-style licensed free software project could, of course, get the documents gratis from the PFIF making that situation moot.

However, the more fundemental reason is that Microsoft's European lawyers need something that they can tell Ballmer they haven't backed down on in their fight with the EC to avoid any coniciosesiation* incidents.

* chair throwing

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[aj50]

Could a proprietary software developer not do something similar, have one employee document the protocol from the samba source and have another implement it again from that documentation?
Given the effort involved, it might be easier to pay MS $10000...

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[jayp00001]

what's the point to the documentation not being disclosable?

Talk about pointless legalese...

Not really. The docs themselves might contain patented material. And only your source code might be freely distributable. Even if you had the source code it might not be possible to implement certain features (IE replication notification algorithms) without breaking patents.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[idontgno]

• If you inspect the documentation and write code based on that documentation, you have at least partly disclosed what's in the documentation by embodying it in source code. If the docs are nondisclosable, logic suggests code based on the docs should be.
• If the code embodies none of the information in the documentation... WTF was the point of getting the documentation?

Patents here are a bit of a red herring anyways.

• Patent protection isn't included. Microsoft disclosed the documentation, but they didn't license or waive patents. If you read the docs and implement a patented algorithm on the basis of those docs, your permission to read the docs doesn't immunize you from patent infringement.
• Also, patents aren't necessarily the point of a non-disclosable technical specification. Non-patented trade secrets, for instance, might be the reason for non-disclosability. Or simple corporate paranoia.

I'll say it again: if you write code based on NDA documents, and the source code is distributable, the information in the NDA document is being disclosed in the form of the source code. And that makes no sense to me.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[jayp00001]

If you inspect the documentation and write code based on that documentation, you have at least partly disclosed what's in the documentation by embodying it in source code. If the docs are nondisclosable, logic suggests code based on the docs should be.

As I said your code should be available if you choose

If the code embodies none of the information in the documentation... WTF was the point of getting the documentation?

To work around hypothetical patent issue. Know what is required is far better than not knowing that function x is required even if you know you cannot do it as well as the patented version.

Patent protection isn't included. Microsoft disclosed the documentation, but they didn't license or waive patents. If you read the docs and implement a patented algorithm on the basis of those docs, your permission to read the docs doesn't immunize you from patent infringement.

I thought that's what I was saying about patents

Also, patents aren't necessarily the point of a non-disclosable technical specification. Non-patented trade secrets, for instance, might be the reason for non-disclosability. Or simple corporate paranoia.

I agree but in this case I'd think Microsoft would have moved or be in the process of moving every trade secret into a patent ASAP. Normally the trade secrets act would have been the hammer to squash anyone silly enough to somehow get secret Microsoft docs. Since that's maybe gone or mitigated the next thing is to drop a patent on it.

I'll say it again: if you write code based on NDA documents, and the source code is distributable, the information in the NDA document is being disclosed in the form of the source code. And that makes no sense to me.

Let me try this approach. I give you the plans to build my airplane- however every single part is protected by patents. if you take a look at those parts, figure a way to make different parts that perform the same functions and build a plane, on the outside you might say it's a duplicate of mine. On the inside its another beast entirely. Even if you published the plans to your plane, someone else is not going to know how I built my plane. Your plane and mine might have different flight characteristics. it will most certainly not be the same.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[Bert64]

But do consider that this release is due to the EU ruling...
Software patents are not valid in the EU, so such concerns are not directly relevant to developers/users in the EU, and it is european people who the european commission's job is to look out for.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[idontgno]

As far as patents go, this analogy is great. (Although lacking in the Slashdot-standard "Car Analogy" standard.) And the settlement and disclosure agreement we're all commenting on requires Microsoft to disclose the patent numbers of the software "inventions" they feel are embodied in the interfaces documented in the ultra-spiffy double-uber-non-disclosable documents. That means that Microsoft has to mark out the patent minefield in their workgroup protocols so that the Samba team knows what they have to re-engineer.

Somehow, I'm failing to make my real point though. My point is this: nondisclosure of the document is effectively pointless, because (A) the code will contain any of the information in the document necessary to fulfill the software's improved functionality, and yet be freely distributable and capable of study from the source code; and (B) patents can't be hidden: the patent numbers disclosed in accordance with the agreement are guaranteed pointers to the actual patent filings, and patent filings must be sufficiently detailed that the patented invention could actually be implemented according to the patent description.

Patents are public things. Inspect one and you have most of the knowledge you need to actually build the patented thing. You just aren't allowed to, unless you have license from the patent-holder. So hiding a patent in a non-disclosable document is a non-issue. Patents aren't the reason to make the document non-disclosable. And obviously, the information itself in the document isn't a reason to make the document non-disclosable, since the information is about to be translated into another language (C, problably) and published for libre. So, ultimately, I'm guessing the document remains non-disclosable for non-pragmatic reasons: bureaucratic inertia at Microsoft ("This document is non-disclosable. It's always been."); deliberate or incidental attempt to make working with the document and its information tougher (witness the necessity of a complete distinct holding entity which will receive the docs); perhaps a futile attempt to lay a "non-disclosure trap" ("I am Inigo Montoya. Your comments include detailed information from a non-disclosable Microsoft document. Prepare to die.")

Again, it makes no pragmatic sense to me.

Re:I'm not understanding something...

[John Hasler]

> The docs themselves might contain patented material.

Um, patents are _published_.

What's this mean in the real world?

[dave562]

Am I going to be able to run a Linux based Domain Controller? Is my Samba box going to be able to publish Active Directory compatible ACLs for the shares it hosts? Is nmap now going to tell me that Samba boxes are Win2K3 servers?!?! ;)

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[dave562]

The title should have been, "What does this mean in the real world?" Grammar Nazi's please pardon me.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[UnknowingFool]

Samba has been developed without the actual documentation of the protocols. The team has done a remarkable job of reverse-engineering them as much as possible. The end result is that Samba is mostly compatible with Windows servers and clients. But there have been some missing pieces because the protocols haven't been open. For example Samba can operate in an Active Directory (AD) domain but cannot be used as a primary AD server. It could be used to make a Linux Primary Domain Controller though.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[ddoctor]

The Samba4 project has been working on exactly this goal for ages now. They have a few "Technology Previews" available.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[UnknowingFool]

Am I going to be able to run a Linux based Domain Controller?

Samba has allowed Linux/Unix boxes to be a Primary Domain Controller for a while.

Is my Samba box going to be able to publish Active Directory compatible ACLs for the shares it hosts?

Yes I think it does but I'm not an expert.

Is nmap now going to tell me that Samba boxes are Win2K3 servers?!?! ;)

I'm not sure but that is probably not a good thing. ;)

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[ScytheBlade1]

Primary Domain Controllers died with NT4. As of server 2000, the concept of "primary" was removed and everything was made multi-master.

To that end, no, samba has not been able to *fully* function as a "domain controller" - as that is a separate technology from that of a "primary domain controller." They share some characteristics, but they are not the same thing.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[joeytmann]

Well there are the FSMO roles, and the one I think he is referring to is the PDC Emulator role, which there can be only one.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[dave562]

Will they ever be able to fill FSMO roles? How about providing NETLOGON share functionality to permit the replication of group policy objects and logon scripts? I imagine that Microsoft will probably draw the line some where. I doubt that they'd let a third party have all of the knowledge required to produce an Active Directory domain.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[Ajehals]

I would assume since the EU is aiming to make it possible for third parties to interoperate with Microsoft products (IIRC this is intended to mitigate the negative effects of Microsoft's monopoly whilst providing an opportunity for competition) that Microsoft 'letting'

a third party have all of the knowledge required to produce an Active Directory domain. isn't really an issue, the intent is to try to make it possible and in doing so make it possible for anyone interested to produce a node (for want of a better word) that can provide an/or utilise services made available within a domain.

Microsoft may not want others to be able to be able to provide services that work well with and/or provide similar or better functionality than their own, but that is what they have been told not to hinder by hiding their specs.

Re:What's this mean in the real world?

[Richard_at_work]

Unless I am very much mistaken (I have only recently taken over administration of a companies AD infrastructure), one of your Active Directory Domain Controllers (usually the first one in the domain) is more important than any of the others, and must be treated as such in disaster recovery scenarios. If it dies, the AD suffers.

But that's only what I have surmised from about a months worth of hands on experience and nothing else - anyone care to correct me (please?!)?

Thank you Jeremy. Thank you Europe.

[TopSpin]

Merry Xmas, happy new years etc.

Until the next release?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

THis is only worth anything so long as MS does not "innovate" and "extend" the protocol and break compatability.

Re:Until the next release?

[calebt3]

That's how they are going to implement the "Extinguish" part of their plan. Release a new version (always incompatible w/it's predecessor) every week/month until Samba can no longer afford to keep buying the new specs. Does the agreement apply to future versions as well?

...
...
...
... I guess it is a good thing after all that corporations don't upgrade as fast as the software world moves.

Re:Until the next release?

[jabuzz]

How are they going to do that without breaking the millions of clients in their existing install base? Besides Microsoft are simple not that agile in software releases. It took five years to ship Vista, and there is a similar gap between Server 2003 and 2008.

If they did somehow manage to suddenly become agile and do these releases then it would bring squeals of protest from their clients. Sorry you cannot update your machine over the network to the new networking standards as we have already upgrade the server to make the clients incompatible.

Apart from fedorated directories what extra does Sever 2008 bring in the fileserver/domain controller space? As far as I am aware nothing.

Re:Until the next release?

[Allador]

Apart from fedorated directories what extra does Sever 2008 bring in the fileserver/domain controller space? As far as I am aware nothing. The typical evolutionary improvements.

IIS7 (big improvement, though not AD/File-server)
Hypervisor built in
Continued to add security features to the OS & kernel
More group policy control and settings
Much more modular install (server core stuff)
Branch office server improvements (replication, mgmt)

One of the biggest ones I think for a DC or file server is the 'server core' approach. Gives you the ability to install a slimmer server OS than in the past, up to and including no GUI (just powershell). This can be a benny for keeping your file-servers or DCs as simple as possible.

I havent read up on all the details, but since 2003-R2 they've really been putting in some nice features for branch-office server scenarios. And finally an NTFRS/DFS replication system that doesnt suck the big one.

Re:Until the next release?

[j-pimp]

One of the biggest ones I think for a DC or file server is the 'server core' approach. Gives you the ability to install a slimmer server OS than in the past, up to and including no GUI (just powershell). This can be a benny for keeping your file-servers or DCs as simple as possible.

I havent read up on all the details, but since 2003-R2 they've really been putting in some nice features for branch-office server scenarios. And finally an NTFRS/DFS replication system that doesnt suck the big one.

I'm not sure if I'd go with a GUIless DCs, at least not for a while. There is simply too much gui based stuff out there, and GDI is integrated into everything. So I don't see much size or performance benifit and I do see alot of headaches.

Yes I'm sure I could manage a guiless domain controller, but it would be pretty vanilla. Also, If I decided to deploy some gui admin tool domain wide, I'd want it on the DCs. I think I'd start with web or SQL servers for production GUIless windows boxes.

Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[Anonymous Coward]

- Duke Nukem progress
- IE8 passes Acid2
- Dell ships Linux
- Microsoft opens specs

Wait... this *is* the other place!

That was earth! Damn you, apes!

Re:Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[calebt3]

Dell's been shipping Linux for a while. They just moved on to 7.10 when they had been shipping 7.04. No bigger news than when OEMs started selling Vista instead of XP. It was inevitable.

Re:Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[omkhar]

Linux 7.10 ? Wow!!!!

Idiot

Re:Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[calebt3]

You know what I meant. Would you prefer that I had said they had moved on to Ubuntu 7.10?

Re:Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[Daengbo]

You missed the joke ...

• Duke Nukem progress http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/19/1945235
• IE8 passes Acid2 http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/19/2231235
• Dell ships Linux http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/19/1954227
• Microsoft opens specs http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/19/1954227

Re:Next up: dogs and cats living together?

[Rhinobird]

It's like looking at the four horsemen of the apocolypse or something.

Ok

[rrohbeck]

Now can we do the same thing for the Outlook/Exchange protocol?

Re:Ok

[xiaomai]

This is what I've been wondering ever since I heard the news as well. Anyone have any information on this front?

Re:Ok

[John Hasler]

That is included, I believe. This is not just about SMB.

Benefits Linux, OSX, Solaris and other *nix

[tyrione]

This makes a mixed environment more accessible and I imagine with Microsoft seeing that they are having to deal with many solutions not of their own that they'd treat this as a playing nice in the sandbox. Customers are tolerant but if they can find a compelling solution that saves them money I think Microsoft is wise to put this in so as to stem such customer defections.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is a real victory ... if it pans out

[megabunny]

The shell company and the subcontracted developers (Samba etc) cannot release the documentation.

BUT, they can create a reference implementation with normal source code comments and release that without any limits. This will effectively document the protocols. The hoi polloi just can't read Microsoft's documentation directly.

And if the documentation is incorrect, there are recourses.
And if patents come into play, there are recourses.
And if the documentation gets out of date, there are recourses.
And if you read the docs you are only NDA for three months (patents, not so much, as ususal)

This actually looks really good. Fingers crossed the inevitable gotchas are small and can be lived with.

MB

Thanks

[DrYak]

Just to say thank you for all your work.

lynxcache mirror

[DoctorEternal]

http://lynxcache.com/Groklaw_Samba_Team_Receives_Microsoft_Protocol_Documentation.html

a little disappointed..

[pjr.cc]

As with the original EU descision, i am somewhat disappointed.

The WSPP protocols dont covery enough. And to be honest, things like smb/ad should be FORCED into an open standard when they're a dominant player in the market (and used as leverage for even more monopolism).

On top of that, it should have covered many more protocols, the exchange protocols for starters.

Really very disappointed in this descision and AT for going out making it sound like a win.

Impresisons

[icepick72]

This is fine and good but I was under the impression the Samba team had reverse-engineered a lot of protocols to get where they are. Can they not do the same with Active Directory too? Is it a patent or legal issue or is it actually a technical hurdle?

Re:Impresisons

[ledow]

Yeah, they can do the same, so long as they follow the well-established clean-room procedure, as they have done previously and are still doing. And the current (and next) Samba already has a lot of AD in it, just not stuff that's useful to managing networks like Group Policy etc. which IS covered by this agreement. AD auth is already in most samba's distributed. However, if you want to work out all the corner cases, all the undocumented stuff etc. then you need specs. Or else you can spend (literally) another decade, not to mention a lot of money on people's wages, to figure out how it all works using a bit of cleanroom reverse-engineering by which time it's obsolete and outdated.

It's a hurdle on all three counts - there are patents (but with this agreement MS has to tell us what they are and if they get any new ones that affect licensees), there are legal problems (making sure the code is CLEANLY reverse-engineered for starters) and there are technical issues (it's a whole heap of a mess and it's taking years to find out useful information that you can put in a nicely programmed version, it requires literally throwing educated-guess packets at a Windows server and trying to replicate it's response depending on the state of the entire network, the packet and the server databases).

Novell is probably happy.

[miffo.swe]

Its pretty funny that Novell cant make their products work against AD. They have this agreement with Microsoft and it sure looks like pure vapour.

Samba seems the only way that Novell can make for example Open Enterprise work as an AD controller. This is in my mind pretty funny considering they are supposedly in an interoperability agreement with Microsoft.

What i think happened was that Novell was given a large wad of money to shut up and pretend that Microsoft is working togheter with others in the industry and to give credibility to the patent FUD.

What about the DMCA?

[remmelt]

If there is a locking mechanism or some other encryption, however feeble, it will become illegal to reverse engineer, right? Or would that still be OK for compatibility purposes?

Re:What about the DMCA?

[nosferatu1001]

DMCA has specific exemptions for interoperability - so still totally legal

EULAs that say you can't arealso completely bogus, but then surprise....

Obligatory

[FoamingToad]

No apostrophe in Nazis. ;-)

$10,000 does not eq 10.000 euro

[Anonymous Coward]

i think its more like $15,000 USD with the current exchange rate only going up

Great!

[jav1231]

Great! Now maybe someone in OSS can figure out how to route Netbeui!

What!?

In a related announcement...

[Chris Mattern]

...a Microsoft press release announced the replacement for Windows Work Group Server, Windows Team-Up. Among its enhancements will be an all-new protocol which Microsoft claims will be more efficient and powerful than its predecessor.

Chris Mattern

Re:In a related announcement...

[John Hasler]

Please read the article on Groklaw. Microsoft is required to provide updates for any changes.

Great news for developers

[darrinallen]

that is great news for developers

Two words: Automatic Updates.

[tepples]

How are they going to do that without breaking the millions of clients in their existing install base? Two words: Automatic Updates. Microsoft could change the protocol and push it out as a security update, much as AOL did during the battle between AIM and Trillian.

Apart from fedorated directories what extra does Sever 2008 bring in the fileserver/domain controller space? "Fedorated"? "Sever"? Is this something designed to chop off the heads of Red Hat employees?

Whittling down the list for Obama's DOJ

[tepples]

As it says MS still owns the patents, and the 10,000 was just to look at the protocols, and not share them, does this mean MS lawyers can ask for 10,000 more if someone wants to use them? If we have the list of patents, we can pay a lawyer and her paralegals with IT experience to look over them and pick apart what they really mean. For each claim, they will find either a workaround, pieces of prior art, or an argument as to why the claim is essential. Then the essential patent claims might be used as evidence for Microsoft's market power in a new antitrust case against Microsoft under a Democrat-controlled administration.