Interoperability
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| SamShazaam Aug 09, 2007 8:21 PM EDT |
Microsoft entered most of these recent deals touting the virtues of increased interoperability. Where are the results? A few things have been done by their partner corporations but I cannot point to a single accomplishment from MS. This hardly shows a concern for the mixed source environment they speak so glowingly about. MS speaks of a new attitude towards open source. It does not exist. It is the same old attitude with only a slight change in tactics. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 10, 2007 11:32 AM EDT |
The F/OSS and IETF "standards" are published for all to see any time they want to. If Microsoft wanted to be interoperable, they could do so in a New York minute. It's all there, ready for them to use, at any time. The one single reason that Microsoft isn't 100% "interoperable" is because they do not _want_ to be. If they are not interoperable _right_now_, it is because they do not want to be. |
| tqk Aug 11, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:If they are not interoperable _right_now_, it is because they do not want to be. ... And anyone who doesn't already know this *cough* Linspire *cough* has no understanding of MS' business model. It does not interoperate. It supplants. |
| marither Aug 12, 2007 12:15 AM EDT |
Well, what can you expect from your competitor/opponent? ;-) |
| hkwint Aug 12, 2007 3:44 AM EDT |
Indeed, MS doesn't want to be interoperable. They even pay hundreds millions of Euros of fines to the EU for not having to be (than how can you claim a new attitude to open source?). After SUN started asking for the SMB protocol in the NT era (mid 90's), and anno 2007 the (MS flavour) SMB protocol stil isn't open with a license suitable to all open source and free software-developers. If that ain't prove... |
| martinjh99 Aug 12, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
hkwint - How does SMB not being open equate to Samba being able to use it? |
| hkwint Aug 12, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
That question is best asked to the Samba developers. Anyway, here is how it went (my version of it): Reverse engineering and implementing the reverse engineered material in a new program all by the same team is forbidden. Therefore, one Samba team reverse-engineers it, writes documentation, and publishes that documentation. This is legally possible since otherwise it almost wouldn't be possible to research software. Reverse engineering in this case, requires 'eavesdropping' of binary commands sent over a network between a Microsoft SMB-server and a Microsoft SMB-client. Automized Reverse assambling (done by a piece of software called a de-assembler) can't be used as far as I know, because it's not a program being reverse engineered, but network-data. So, they have to resort to the hex editor to find out what's happening. Sure a laborious task, which you will know if you ever worked with hex-code (I did, but for a very different reason and task). See it as a closed machine making ballpoints and pencils: On one end, raw material which can be seen, goes in, on the other end, pencils or ballpoints which also can be seen comes out. Reverse assembling means you have to guess which button is pressed to cause a pencil to be created instead of a ballpoint, by means of measuring signals over the wires, and you also would like to know how the machine works. The second Samba team uses the documentation to program Samba. However, using Samba is still patent-encumbered; since Samba (probable) uses patented Microsoft Corp. technologies. Because Microsoft doesn't want to give its SMB implementation away, even if it costs them millions, they change their SMB implementation every time, and say this are 'improvements'. They did this since they 'cribbed'the SMB protocol from IBM. They also came with CIFS, meant to be the successor of the SMB protocol. This means, the whole reverse engineering of the Samba team starts over again about every quarter. It should be noted, Microsoft is aware of all of this happening. While this all happens, people use Samba, and that's one of the reasons Microsoft is using the patent threatening: Samba users owe to Microsoft. However, since Microsoft is working together with Novell, Xandros and Linspire, you won't be sued for SMB/CIFS-patent infringement if you buy from them. In return for Microsoft being able to say Novell admits amongst other technologies, SMB is patent encumbered, Microsoft enables enterprise-SuSE to better work with (amongst other technologies) the SMB protocol, which is the 'interoperability part' of the deal. Of course, Novell denies it admitted SMB et. all. are patent encumbered, but fact is enterprise SuSE probably has a better imlpmentation of Microsofts proprietary (extended) SMB protocol. That is the reason the Samba team was one of the most vocal opponents of the Microsoft/Novell deal. Since Sun asked the European Government for SMB to become an open protocol (starting in '93 I believe) because that way they could make Sun-software interoperate with Windows NT, it took over 13 years for Microsoft, and several fines of hundreds of millions of Euros, to publish it. However, the licenses disable use of these protocols for free software, since sub-licensing is forbidden. Since with free software you can't control who receives a copy of Samba, Microsofts SMB protocol still can't be used in Samba, as far as I know. Still, they say OOXML is meant because 'Microsoft aims at interoperability with other platforms'. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 13, 2007 2:37 AM EDT |
Nice explanation Hans, but one small point of comment:Quoting:Reverse engineering and implementing the reverse engineered material in a new program all by the same team is forbidden. It's not forbidden at all. It's just more difficult from a legal point of view. When reverse engineering and reimplementing, you have to have some way of proving that you didn't use any of the decompiled/disassembled copyrighted material in your program. Having one team doing the reverse engineering and another team implementing makes this easy: None of the people programming ever get near the reverse engineered and copyrighted stuff. They only see the public documentation/specs. It's possible to do this with just one team but you had better keep a very good (software) audit trail to show that none of the reverse engineered and copyrighted material ends up in your new application, or you're asking for a copyright lawsuit. |
| dinotrac Aug 13, 2007 2:52 AM EDT |
Lxers frame the interoperability question in a very funny way. The issue is not whether Microsoft cares in any fundamental way about interoperability. Their position, I think, is what it always has been: We are willing to iinteroperate to the extent, and only to the extent, that it makes us more money and lets us improve our market control. Internet Explorer can read HTML and do javascript. In the old days, Microsoft Word could import a number of "foreign" formats. If Microsoft does not control a market (as in Quicken v. Money), Microsoft is willing to let others interoperate with it in order to gain control. It does not want to interoperate with others. In the current landscape, the reality of Linux means that Microsoft must interoperate more than it would like. Deals like the Novell deal helps it there. The Novell deal lets Micrsoft say -- Hey! We work with Linux. You've just got to avoid those hippie Linuxes that don't play by the rule of business. It also has Novell reaching over to interoperate with Microsoft using Microsoft protocols. Microsoft drives, others go along. For Novell, this makes sense. It is the reality that most of their market faces. For companies that are "just" Linux companies, I don't much see the attraction. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 13, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
> For companies that are "just" Linux companies, I don't much see the attraction. That's what makes this issue so interesting to me. I cannot imagine any motivation that would be worth the strings and encumbrances which accompany any Microsoft "sharing". Rooting out those motivations is a chance to learn something new, as well as be entertained the same way people view horror movies: morbid curiosity. In my imagination, the benefits of being able to move independently of MS seem large. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!