No, that is unlikely to happen. Perhaps you don't understand what.NET is..NET is a brand new platform. It will run on many
devices, not just Windows PC's. For example, it will run on X-Box's, and Hand Helds, and embedded devices. Those devices will not
be necessarily running on X86, they will use a whole variety of CPU's and architectures. Thus rather than telling programmers to write for
the Windows API, Microsoft is not saying that if you are writing an Internet application you should be writing for the.NET API.
If Microsoft succeeds in doing with.NET what they have failed to do with Windows, that is make it available on a wide variety of
platforms, then changing the underlying environment will be very, very hard. The whole point of the environment is that it is consistent
across the entire Internet. Its attraction to programmers will be that they can write write something once and it will run everywhere. If you
then change that API in an incompatible way you break the concept.
Microsoft are in the same bind with Samba. I am sure they would love to break Samba with each new release of Windows, in the way
they do with NTFS. But they can't, because that would mean older versions of Windows would cease to work on a Microsoft
network.
When I first heard that Microsoft picked a fight with one of the most popular eZines I found it difficult to believe. The timing was odd, to say the least. But I came across two posts; one from The Register, and a slashdot comment then between made it all make sense. This is what The Register said:
"The threat Microsoft perceives isn't from Kerberos itself, but from the progress achieved by the Samba developers. The latest goal for Samba's developers is to replace Windows servers as Primary Domain Controllers capable of serving Windows 2000 clients. Equally, Microsoft wants to make its Windows servers compulsory in a Kerberos environment where Windows 2000 clients are involved, and it sees an opportunity to leverage that client base."
The slashdot comment said that one of original comments singled out by the lawyers could not of possibly violated anything. This is the original comment:
"What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?"
The link between the two comments is Samba. One says Samba is the primary threat. The second ask what effect does all this have on Samba. I don't know, but I would dearly love to find out. My guess is that Microsoft is trying to stop Samba from emulating their version of Kerberos. They already know that it will be reverse engineered - so the question becomes how do you stop it. Simple. Publish the spec and say in your EULA:
"the Specification is provided... for the sole purpose of reviewing the Specification for security analysis... Microsoft does not grant you any right to implement this Specification"
Now any attempt at reverse engineering the protocol can be attacked by saying "you did not reverse engineer it - you used our spec which is in the public domain". This would be very difficult (read expensive) to defend. In short it allows them to use the DMCA as a weapon against Samba. Finally, you have to make sure the people at Samba, and indeed any body else who might have plans for reverse engineering it, are aware of what Microsoft has in store for them. This is not a trivial task as Microsoft lawyers don't usually spend their days mingling with free software types. Enter Slashdot. And I think we would all agree Slashdot has done a wonderful job for them so far.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that is unlikely to happen. Perhaps you don't understand what .NET is. .NET is a brand new platform. It will run on many
devices, not just Windows PC's. For example, it will run on X-Box's, and Hand Helds, and embedded devices. Those devices will not
be necessarily running on X86, they will use a whole variety of CPU's and architectures. Thus rather than telling programmers to write for
the Windows API, Microsoft is not saying that if you are writing an Internet application you should be writing for the .NET API.
If Microsoft succeeds in doing with .NET what they have failed to do with Windows, that is make it available on a wide variety of
platforms, then changing the underlying environment will be very, very hard. The whole point of the environment is that it is consistent
across the entire Internet. Its attraction to programmers will be that they can write write something once and it will run everywhere. If you
then change that API in an incompatible way you break the concept.
Microsoft are in the same bind with Samba. I am sure they would love to break Samba with each new release of Windows, in the way they do with NTFS. But they can't, because that would mean older versions of Windows would cease to work on a Microsoft network.