Windows Server Trusts Samba4 Active Directory 182
Darren Ginter writes "A group of Samba v4 developers recently spent a week in Redmond to work with Microsoft on Active Directory interoperability(?!). The result? Windows Server will now join, trust and replicate a Samba-based Active Directory using Microsoft-native protocols. Although Samba v4 is still in the alpha stages, this is a huge step for open source. Or it could be a trap."
It's a nice story... (Score:5, Interesting)
I look forward... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a nice story... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's an earth moving change in the relationship between MS and the free world, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
I'll breathe easier if this doesn't result in legal trouble for Linux distributions and the *BSDs down the road. MS has a long, long way to go before I could ever trust them to do something with the open source community for any purpose other than to, eventually, obliterate it as a threat.
Publicly recanting the Halloween Documents, and particularly "embrace, extend, and extinguish" would be a start, if only a start.
OK, it's an MS-created protocol anyway, but I'm still very suspicious about MS management's ultimate motives in allowing this collaboration to take place.
Re:Of course it's a trap (Score:4, Interesting)
And then - "Who do you trust and who do you serve?" [notnews.org].
Anyway - you can't be too sure about anything these days, but if Microsoft doesn't cooperate they will have an even lower respect from the open source community than they have today.
In the end Microsoft are probably needing this cooperation.
Re:Just Don't See How This Could Be A 'Trap' (Score:5, Interesting)
Folks interested in saving a buck will start using Samba servers to either completely host or participate in Active Directory domains. The trap or catch will come further down the road when Microsoft patches something that breaks the functionality, at which point Microsoft will simply state that if you wanted something reliable you should have used genuine Windows servers. Don't believe me? The samba project is already rife with examples of this. Didn't we see Samba choke when enterprises tightening up security disabled ntlmv1?
I seriously doubt Samba-based AD servers will be fully functional anyway, just like Samba emulating an NT4 domain was just barely functional. Microsoft helped them figure out how to use the native Microsoft protocols to replicate the AD database instead of having to rely on the semi-functional openldap hack they had been using (actually be be more accurate, MS confirmed and correct their reverse engineering of the protocols).
Being able to replicating the AD database/ldap and form working trusts does not make Samba a good substitute for AD. It simply gives it an ability to co-exist with a real AD infrastructure. GPOs and most of the other desirable features of Active Directory are not implemented in Samba. Big businesses will still use MS boxes to ensure all the features work and its stable, since the cost of the software is not the driving factor.
Re:Of course it's a trap (Score:3, Interesting)
And the DOJ might enforce the antitrust ruling against MS... I am sorry but I think that there is little chance that SCOTUS will do that right thing here.
Re:How many years has Samba4 been in development n (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you mean "this is a sterling example of how poorly documented and understood, even within Microsoft, Windows behavior is".
Microsoft had to dig into Windows kernel source to figure out why Windows didn't like what Samba was doing. How the hell was the Samba team supposed to figure it out from specs?
This is why the OOXML spec is six and a half thousand pages long and even then parts of it still read, simply, "do what Excel does here".
Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
A whole week? Here'a a nice memory jogger [theregister.co.uk] for you:
Only summer comes, and the code isn't ready. It isn't ready in the autumn, either, and this starts to play hell with Sendo's budgets. December rolls round, and according to Sendo, bugfixes that carriers have requested are being refused by Microsoft. Sendo is in a cash crisis, and a call to VCs is spurned. So Sendo asks Microsoft for a further cash injection, which is declined:
"Microsoft refused with the full knowledge that this refusal would push Sendo to insolvency", claims Sendo in the filing.
How did it know? Well, meet Marc Brown, who was by now acting in his capacity as a Sendo board member while continuing his day job as the director of Microsoft's corporate development and strategy group.
In the end Microsoft winds up with all of Sendo's cellular phone intellectual property as the company is liquidated:
"They were not entitled to such information under the terms of the SDMA" - the precursor to the February 2001 agreement that the two inked in the fall of 2000.
In fact, this SDMA turns out to have been Sendo's death warrant. As the company explains:
"Under the SDMA, in the event of a Sendo bankruptcy, Microsoft would obtain an irrevocable, royalty free license to use Sendo's Z100 intellectual property, including rights to make, use, or copy the Sendo Smartphone to create other to create other Smartphones and to, most importantly for Microsoft, sublicense those rights to third parties."
So... two years, 12 million dollars and a board member, and it does appear that it was a trap the whole time. To anybody who remembers IBM's partnership with Microsoft on OS/2 this tale will sound familiar. If you dance with the devil, you will pay his fee.
This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)
back in 1995 I ran a small business that did Linux installs for companies to replace Windows NT Server systems with Linux plus Samba. We used Slackware Linux and then later Red Hat, but it did Windows file and printer sharing for Windows clients and saved those businesses thousands in Windows Server licenses.
But when Active Directory came out, companies switched back to Windows Server, because Linux and Samba lacked that. Exchange can be done via OpenExchange and use MySQL or PostgreSQL instead of SQL Server.
Linux has to match Windows Server feature by feature in order to compete with it, and be used. Linux might never replace Windows on the desktop, but it can replace Windows on the server as Unix and Linux are designed as server operating systems.
Re:How many years has Samba4 been in development n (Score:3, Interesting)
So what you're basically saying here, is that Microsoft is not purposefully evil, but rather incompetent (like many shops) at documenting their source code and software behavior ?
What I'm saying is that this is not evidence of *Samba* being incompetent.
However.
You can't rule out both.
I have in the past said that I wouldn't mind Microsoft being the "Evil Empire" if only they were a *competent* Evil Empire.
Re:Trap? (Score:3, Interesting)
The trap wouldn't necessarily be Microsoft claiming patent infringement but offering the technology with a license that's incompatible with the GPLv3's patent requirements. Since the GPLv3 and Samba going to the GPLv3 license, it would basically cause Samba 4 to discard all works done under the GPLv3 license and basically cripple Samba to pre-GPLv3 conditions with a lot of work to redo a lot of functionality and improvements.
I warned of this possibility way back when the GPLv3 was a heated debate and again when Samba announced it's move to the GPLv3. Without a firm Commitment from Microsoft, this will forever linger and remain a possible threat. BTW, the unclean hands portion would drastically be negated in a court if MS offered a free as in beer license for any IP it considers infringing even if it isn't free as in speech and compatible with the GPLv3 requirements.
Re:It's a nice story... Institute a 7 YEAR CLOCK (Score:3, Interesting)
Publicly recanting the Halloween Documents, and particularly "embrace, extend, and extinguish" would be a start, if only a start.
Institute a 7 year clock.
Watch Microsoft actions over a seven year period, only start purchasing their products again if their actions over the last seven years show that they have honestly changed.
Anytime they spread FUD or Embrace or Extend or Extinguish or do anything, any action, to harm open source, FOSS and/or Linux RESTART THE CLOCK!
Your base your purchase decision based on their business decisions and actions, period. Let me say that again, based on ACTIONS, not WORDS or marketing FUD. Their words often lie, history is rife with examples. To not acknowledge this reveals you to be either a shill, working for Microsoft or ignorant of the factual history. Do not be part of the problem. Their actions often take 2 or 3 years before they can extinguish, thus a longer period is smart.
The added plus side is that if they KNOW that a business decision is going to cost them 7 years business from a significant segment of the market (they will try to tell you that it is not a significant part of the market, do not buy into that FUD) ; they are more likely to NOT be stupid.
All one has to do is look at the statistics in the browser wars; operating system wars, office wars, server wars, active directory wars, etc... to see that they win a battle here or there but they are slowly, very slowly losing the war. (It is not lost on the author that they started these wars, not anyone else) Do not let them spread more FUD that the numbers of users upset with their past business practices is small. Not now, not thanks to Vista and the Economic downturn.
Microsoft new campaign, "make web, not war", too funny. Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what!
I am waiting 7 years before I purchase again. If they behave badly I will reset the clock from that day. I reset the clock this month and will probably reset it again next month. Thats okay with me, its not like I need their products anyway there are ample options in every vertical. My guess is they will not be able to change their behavior, innovate and entice me to purchase. Only time will tell. It is up to them now, give me 7 years of good behavior and we can talk! Regardless they will not be able to harm me or the businesses for which I make purchasing decisions any more.
Keep it simple!
On a positive note, I am guaranteed not to waste another dollar on vendor lock-in and proprietary BS. That makes me smile...all the way to the bank. My TCO (total cost of ownership) is already the cost of Vista and Windows 7 cheaper per desktop than any Windows user that bought into Vista. (I have multiple desktops and servers at home)
Why are you Vista users putting up with this crap, give Beryl a try, you will not want to go back. They should have given a cheap ($20 - $30) upgrade or free upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Yet another mistake and any Vista user is right to be upset over it. Makes Microsoft look desperate to me.
On full disclosure, I saw a $300 netbook that triple boots (Macintosh, Windows and Linux) so I might waste $300 for a testing platform only. While I use Microsoft desktops at various companies when I have no other options; at home I have been free of Windows for over two years now. Linux is a smarter development platform also, as you can develop for all platforms, even Windows. The converse is often NOT true. Helps you to avoid functionality that is dependent on Windows operating systems as well. Very smart to avoid those traps.
Why 7 years, glad you asked? They have been doing what they do, harming alternatives for well over two decades, 20 years plus, 7 years seems like enough time to know if they have changed or not. (I was in IT before DOS 1.0; I have lived it first hand. I do not need anyone to verify what I have experienced.)
For newer