I know full well that Samba's gone a hell of a long way with pretty much zero help from Microsoft. But I can't help thinking that the documentation will be of use.
Of course, that only happened a few months ago and Samba 4 is currently under heavy development. How much it helps largely remains to be seen.
Thousands of EU ministries and departments applying for waivers because the ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint for them to continue in their vital work.
I think it goes rather deeper than that.
Where you have entire IT departments which are used to doing 90% of their work (desktop AND server) on Microsoft products, the effort and expense of suddenly discovering that Microsoft products are now verboten for new systems would be rather more than most could realistically bear.
I'm as interested in seeing Microsoft's position weakened as the next rabid/.'er but I don't think destroyed would be very good for IT - it's competition the market needs, not replacing one heterogeny (Windows) with another (Unix, albeit in a number of guises).
That depends entirely on the law of the country in which this rule is being set up. As far as I know, it often applies to debts rather than offers to buy.
A debt implies that the buyer has already got the product or service and they have yet to pay for it. An offer to buy is just that - you offer to give the merchant £XX and part of this offer includes paying by whatever method. The merchant is free to reject the offer or negotiate on it.
Microsoft have been very keen on code signing the last few years. I wouldn't put it past them to implement signing of the message passing between Exchange, Sharepoint and Office.
And if they had done something along these lines, then it doesn't matter if they do publish the protocols, you're still not going to be doing much interoperating.
I've not read these documents, so I haven't the remotest idea what they contain. This is random speculation, and if all you're going to do is reply saying "What a load of pointless random speculation" - yes, I know that. I'm just saying that it's a possibility.
MS has NEVER done anything yet that is pro open source
You'd better tell the Samba people that. They think they've been given the documentation for the protocols they implement under a reasonable license which will significantly aid development:
I appreciate what you're saying as being a truth of the current ISP industry.
However, I believe it can be boiled down to a few sentences:
"ISPs realised that most people are never going to use anything like the kind of bandwidth they're paying for. It therefore made sense to sell significantly more bandwidth than they actually had available.
Unfortunately, they didn't account for the possibility that one day, a lot of people might actually start to use that bandwidth. This has seriously damaged their business model because they can't offer unlimited Internet access for $50/month any more."
I don't see how a business model based on selling something you don't own in the first place (surely a risky proposition) is my problem as a customer. Nor do I see how it is the BBCs problem as a content provider.
Sucks to be a small ISP (rather than a tier 1 or 2), but that's their problem.
The iPlayer service is only available in the UK (Yes I know about proxy servers - they still require UK bandwidth) so US net neutrality laws wouldn't make much difference.
And as far as I am aware, no similar laws have been mooted in the UK yet.
Imagine a.NET/Mono based Zimbra. I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.
Microsoft can't afford to lose their monopoly on the desktop because they don't have anything else viable as a business plan capable of generating that kind of revenue. Right now, about the only thing underpinning that monopoly that they have significant control over is Office - and specifically, the combination of Outlook and Exchange.
Now, hold that thought for a minute.
OSS can't be destroyed by Microsoft. But the major sources of funding can be - at least where a buyout would be unlikely to attract the interest of the authorities.
Yahoo is a major source of funding to a lot of projects which are thorns in Microsoft's side and could realistically be threats to their monopoly.
I don't think this is Microsoft trying to take another direction. I think it's more likely to be Microsoft trying to direct the way technology moves by buying out anything which goes against what they do.
I don't know if there's some other system I don't know about, but I've been an Abbey customer for about 4 years now, using the Internet banking site more or less since I opened the account.
In that time, it has always complained if it didn't like your browser. But it has always allowed you to click-through and login anyway. And I don't think I have ever seen an issue with it which could reasonably be blamed on browser incompatability.
He may have been a great actor but I just don't share his thinking on such matters like gun control.
Regardless of whether or not you share his opinion, he at least had the balls to come out and say it publicly, even knowing that such an opinion would be controversial. That's more than a lot of us ever do.
If they don't list specific programs, then I don't see from a legal standpoint how they could say 1 antivirus software was better than any other. They're banks; they make their own mind up regarding the law.
It has been known in the past for banks to report you to the police if you continue to insist that you're not the reason why £1000 suddenly went missing out of your account. After all, the bank's decided that it's your fault, so if you continue to make a fuss then you're trying to defraud them.
I suspect the combination of tactics like this and a small-claims system which is generally fairly straightforward for a lay person to use will just result in more banks being sued. Bank won't return the money? Take them to court and ask questions later - and I'm sure the judge will be very interested to learn that the bank had you arrested as soon as they received the court summons.
If this really does go down, that will be a pretty big statement about PC security in general. Regardless of who is responsible, if a bank says it will no longer trust the end user's security that is a bad omen for the rest of e-commerce. What about the credit card companies? How will they react to the bank's position? A thought that occurs.
TPM (yes, Trusted Computing) allows a client system to cryptographically prove that its installed software includes a particular product. Presumably this could be harnessed so the bank won't let you log on unless your computer attests to the fact that you're running software the bank deems acceptable.
Solves the security problem nicely. Whether the cure is worse than the disease is something I leave open to debate.
It depends: Are there banks other than Egg that have ATMs in your town? Brief explanation of a few things about how UK banking works for our US cousins because there are significant differences:
1. You get paid into your bank account. Virtually nobody is paid in cash. This isn't something you get to negotiate with your employer - they'll ask for your bank account details when you start working. 2. Checks (or, in UK spelling, cheques) are rapidly dying. Many retailers no longer accept them. More or less every bank account comes with a debit card. 3. ATMs owned and operated by banks are generally free for any UK bank customer to use. Privately owned and operated ATMs, OTOH, aren't - these are more commonly found inside shops and pubs. 4. There are usually no charges for day to day banking (eg. receiving statements, using a bank-owned ATM, depositing money). Foreign transactions and unauthorised overdrafts attract swingeing charges.
If a bank only lets you connect via one OS/browser combo, you are effectively co-opted into the software ecosystem as designed by the bank- it's all their system. Very few banks in the UK have IE-only websites, so that's not a particularly big deal.
What is an issue is the wording - nothing in The Register's article suggests that they've included the magic phrase "where necessary". You could be using an SELinux box tightened beyond belief with no need for anti-spyware or antivirus, but if you get ripped off through a website, their first question is going to be "What antivirus are you running?" and if the answer isn't a well known commercial product, then it's your problem and not theirs.
Yes it's a hassle but admittedly microsoft has a much bigger piracy problem than any other OS (and probably any other software out there). That's their problem. Not mine.
Does the corporate Vista activation server require Active Directory? Because if it does, Microsoft are essentially saying "Fine, run Vista on your desktops but if you do you're buying the whole AD kit and caboodle".
Erm... It's the way most people get a copy of Vista. The license permits this crap... So out of the box, it arrives very badly broken. This is Vista's fault. That crap should be on an included CD just in case you are interested in any special offers.... I would point out that a few years ago Microsoft got a minor rap across the knuckles for refusing to allow OEMs to install non-Microsoft software.
I trust you will forgive me for lifting this wholesale from The Tao of Programming:
A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: ``How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?''
``It will take one year,'' said the master promptly.
``But we need this system immediately or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?''
The master programmer frowned. ``In that case, it will take two years.''
``And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?''
The master programmer shrugged. ``Then the design will never be completed,'' he said.
Yeah, for all MS professes to have advanced, they still are doing the same things gave them their bad reputation. Developers and businesses are not as gullible as they once were. That's why there are companies lining up to provide the software that's missing in Linux, certain that the Linux Desktop in business is the Next Big Thing.
> Except that nobody has done that in 20 years or more.
Apple did it circa 2000, and they needed to very desperately. No. They didn't. They took an existing Unix and tweaked it - much of OS X came from NeXT.
It's all rather academic because AFAICT this article is just random speculation repeating the same stuff that was repeated about Vista - "it's a complete rewrite, nothing is sacred, yadda yadda yadda" - bullshit.
Writing a complete operating system entirely from scratch rather than taking an existing codebase and extending it as appropriate is not something anyone who's even remotely in their right mind is likely to do these days. Certainly not if you want the level of functionality expected from a consumer OS.
Now, if you said "They're going to add a few bells and whistles to pretty up Windows Server 2008 and sell it as the next consumer version of Windows", I'd be a lot more inclined to believe you.
The Shareware requesting updates being installed by the computer manufacture is a problem with Vista. They should not need the DeCrapifier right out of the box to fix a new machine. Erm... that's not a problem with Vista. That's a problem with all the OEMs who put that crap on there. Indeed, that's why the DeCrapifier exists.
I'm starting my new businesses on Linux from the ground up. All the money I would have spent on software can now go to more productive expenses...like booze and strippers. Okay, that's not true but it's nice to have the option. If your business becomes large enough to merit doing financials, payroll and/or accounting in-house, let me know how you get on finding Linux software to do this.
I'm 95% certain you'd have to either bite the bullet, use a half-assed solution or pay some other organisation which provides a hosted application.
Why should I, as a Windows Admin, have to know precisely how to edit various INI files and the system registry to change settings, when I can just click something in a GUI? Why should I, as a Windows Admin, have to write an incredibly long and painfully meticulous netsh command to allow something past my firewall when I can just click my way to network settings? Because one day you may find that you have no choice - that something has gone wrong which requires deeper knowledge than that gleaned by clicking the button in the UI.
Now, these occasions are substantially fewer these days than they were 10 years ago, but I would hesitate to describe them as non-existent.
This is just making sure various popular OSS projects can run on top of Windows. That's not interoperability. It'll be interoperability when MS helps OSS projects written specifically for Windows port to *nix without the need for WINE or other emulators. No. It'll be interoperability when an OSS project can communicate with a totally unrelated MS product without having to reverse-engineer everything from scratch.
There is a damn good reason Samba 3.x can only implement Windows NT-4 style domains. It's only in the last couple of months the Samba project has been able to obtain proper specifications.
There is also a damn good reason that there is more or less nothing Free (speech and beer) which integrates fully with Exchange or Outlook without requiring a separate plugin layer.
My memory may be failing me here, but aren't SugarCRM and VTiger somehow related?
Assuming my memory is correct, unless SugarCRM has some drastic differences, they don't need a half-baked competitor. They're quite half-baked enough as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
No I'm not.
I know full well that Samba's gone a hell of a long way with pretty much zero help from Microsoft. But I can't help thinking that the documentation will be of use.
Of course, that only happened a few months ago and Samba 4 is currently under heavy development. How much it helps largely remains to be seen.
Thousands of EU ministries and departments applying for waivers because the ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint for them to continue in their vital work.
/.'er but I don't think destroyed would be very good for IT - it's competition the market needs, not replacing one heterogeny (Windows) with another (Unix, albeit in a number of guises).
I think it goes rather deeper than that.
Where you have entire IT departments which are used to doing 90% of their work (desktop AND server) on Microsoft products, the effort and expense of suddenly discovering that Microsoft products are now verboten for new systems would be rather more than most could realistically bear.
I'm as interested in seeing Microsoft's position weakened as the next rabid
That depends entirely on the law of the country in which this rule is being set up. As far as I know, it often applies to debts rather than offers to buy.
A debt implies that the buyer has already got the product or service and they have yet to pay for it. An offer to buy is just that - you offer to give the merchant £XX and part of this offer includes paying by whatever method. The merchant is free to reject the offer or negotiate on it.
Translation:
"If we don't lose more in custom than we gain in Paypal fees, we declare it a success".
Translation of the Translation:
"We're so arrogant we reckon we can probably get away with this and most of our customers will just accept it".
A thought that occurs.
Microsoft have been very keen on code signing the last few years. I wouldn't put it past them to implement signing of the message passing between Exchange, Sharepoint and Office.
And if they had done something along these lines, then it doesn't matter if they do publish the protocols, you're still not going to be doing much interoperating.
I've not read these documents, so I haven't the remotest idea what they contain. This is random speculation, and if all you're going to do is reply saying "What a load of pointless random speculation" - yes, I know that. I'm just saying that it's a possibility.
MS has NEVER done anything yet that is pro open source
You'd better tell the Samba people that. They think they've been given the documentation for the protocols they implement under a reasonable license which will significantly aid development:
http://news.samba.org/announcements/pfif/
I appreciate what you're saying as being a truth of the current ISP industry.
However, I believe it can be boiled down to a few sentences:
"ISPs realised that most people are never going to use anything like the kind of bandwidth they're paying for. It therefore made sense to sell significantly more bandwidth than they actually had available.
Unfortunately, they didn't account for the possibility that one day, a lot of people might actually start to use that bandwidth. This has seriously damaged their business model because they can't offer unlimited Internet access for $50/month any more."
I don't see how a business model based on selling something you don't own in the first place (surely a risky proposition) is my problem as a customer. Nor do I see how it is the BBCs problem as a content provider.
Sucks to be a small ISP (rather than a tier 1 or 2), but that's their problem.
The iPlayer service is only available in the UK (Yes I know about proxy servers - they still require UK bandwidth) so US net neutrality laws wouldn't make much difference.
And as far as I am aware, no similar laws have been mooted in the UK yet.
Microsoft can't afford to lose their monopoly on the desktop because they don't have anything else viable as a business plan capable of generating that kind of revenue. Right now, about the only thing underpinning that monopoly that they have significant control over is Office - and specifically, the combination of Outlook and Exchange.
Now, hold that thought for a minute.
OSS can't be destroyed by Microsoft. But the major sources of funding can be - at least where a buyout would be unlikely to attract the interest of the authorities.
Yahoo is a major source of funding to a lot of projects which are thorns in Microsoft's side and could realistically be threats to their monopoly.
I don't think this is Microsoft trying to take another direction. I think it's more likely to be Microsoft trying to direct the way technology moves by buying out anything which goes against what they do.
I don't know if there's some other system I don't know about, but I've been an Abbey customer for about 4 years now, using the Internet banking site more or less since I opened the account.
In that time, it has always complained if it didn't like your browser. But it has always allowed you to click-through and login anyway. And I don't think I have ever seen an issue with it which could reasonably be blamed on browser incompatability.
He may have been a great actor but I just don't share his thinking on such matters like gun control.
Regardless of whether or not you share his opinion, he at least had the balls to come out and say it publicly, even knowing that such an opinion would be controversial. That's more than a lot of us ever do.
It has been known in the past for banks to report you to the police if you continue to insist that you're not the reason why £1000 suddenly went missing out of your account. After all, the bank's decided that it's your fault, so if you continue to make a fuss then you're trying to defraud them.
I suspect the combination of tactics like this and a small-claims system which is generally fairly straightforward for a lay person to use will just result in more banks being sued. Bank won't return the money? Take them to court and ask questions later - and I'm sure the judge will be very interested to learn that the bank had you arrested as soon as they received the court summons.
TPM (yes, Trusted Computing) allows a client system to cryptographically prove that its installed software includes a particular product. Presumably this could be harnessed so the bank won't let you log on unless your computer attests to the fact that you're running software the bank deems acceptable.
Solves the security problem nicely. Whether the cure is worse than the disease is something I leave open to debate.
1. You get paid into your bank account. Virtually nobody is paid in cash. This isn't something you get to negotiate with your employer - they'll ask for your bank account details when you start working.
2. Checks (or, in UK spelling, cheques) are rapidly dying. Many retailers no longer accept them. More or less every bank account comes with a debit card.
3. ATMs owned and operated by banks are generally free for any UK bank customer to use. Privately owned and operated ATMs, OTOH, aren't - these are more commonly found inside shops and pubs.
4. There are usually no charges for day to day banking (eg. receiving statements, using a bank-owned ATM, depositing money). Foreign transactions and unauthorised overdrafts attract swingeing charges.
What is an issue is the wording - nothing in The Register's article suggests that they've included the magic phrase "where necessary". You could be using an SELinux box tightened beyond belief with no need for anti-spyware or antivirus, but if you get ripped off through a website, their first question is going to be "What antivirus are you running?" and if the answer isn't a well known commercial product, then it's your problem and not theirs.
Does the corporate Vista activation server require Active Directory? Because if it does, Microsoft are essentially saying "Fine, run Vista on your desktops but if you do you're buying the whole AD kit and caboodle".
I trust you will forgive me for lifting this wholesale from The Tao of Programming:
A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: ``How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?''
``It will take one year,'' said the master promptly.
``But we need this system immediately or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?''
The master programmer frowned. ``In that case, it will take two years.''
``And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?''
The master programmer shrugged. ``Then the design will never be completed,'' he said.
Apple did it circa 2000, and they needed to very desperately. No. They didn't. They took an existing Unix and tweaked it - much of OS X came from NeXT.
It's all rather academic because AFAICT this article is just random speculation repeating the same stuff that was repeated about Vista - "it's a complete rewrite, nothing is sacred, yadda yadda yadda" - bullshit.
Writing a complete operating system entirely from scratch rather than taking an existing codebase and extending it as appropriate is not something anyone who's even remotely in their right mind is likely to do these days. Certainly not if you want the level of functionality expected from a consumer OS.
Now, if you said "They're going to add a few bells and whistles to pretty up Windows Server 2008 and sell it as the next consumer version of Windows", I'd be a lot more inclined to believe you.
I'm 95% certain you'd have to either bite the bullet, use a half-assed solution or pay some other organisation which provides a hosted application.
Why should I, as a Windows Admin, have to write an incredibly long and painfully meticulous netsh command to allow something past my firewall when I can just click my way to network settings? Because one day you may find that you have no choice - that something has gone wrong which requires deeper knowledge than that gleaned by clicking the button in the UI.
Now, these occasions are substantially fewer these days than they were 10 years ago, but I would hesitate to describe them as non-existent.
There is a damn good reason Samba 3.x can only implement Windows NT-4 style domains. It's only in the last couple of months the Samba project has been able to obtain proper specifications.
There is also a damn good reason that there is more or less nothing Free (speech and beer) which integrates fully with Exchange or Outlook without requiring a separate plugin layer.
My memory may be failing me here, but aren't SugarCRM and VTiger somehow related?
Assuming my memory is correct, unless SugarCRM has some drastic differences, they don't need a half-baked competitor. They're quite half-baked enough as it is.