Microsoft has now for a pretty long time tried to convince the court that they are just practicing their freedom to innovate. Now, no one but Microsoft can implement an authenfication service for Windows in a legal way. I do not think Microsoft really can stop anyone from implementing an authentification service, but its horrible that one could get sued over this. They are, with the extension to Kerberos, again showing that they are only talking for themselves. This just proving that the court clearly has made the right decision.
You're off topic. LILO now supports booting from anywhere on a disk within 2 TB. Can you do that with that famous OS of yours, he? NT4.0 can definately not do it.
Would you buy a frontdoor that looked nice, but with a lock that you did not know was secure? I think this shows very clearly one of the major differences between Open Source and software products created and owned by vendors like MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has now for a pretty long time tried to convince the court that they are just practicing their freedom to innovate.
Now, no one but Microsoft can implement an authenfication service for Windows in a legal way. I do not think Microsoft really can stop anyone from implementing an authentification service, but its horrible that one could get sued over this.
They are, with the extension to Kerberos, again showing that they are only talking for themselves.
This just proving that the court clearly has made the right decision.
You're off topic. LILO now supports booting from anywhere on a disk within 2 TB.
Can you do that with that famous OS of yours, he?
NT4.0 can definately not do it.
Would you buy a frontdoor that looked nice, but with a lock that you did not know was secure? I think this shows very clearly one of the major differences between Open Source and software products created and owned by vendors like MS.