Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Windows IT

Windows Server Trusts Samba4 Active Directory 182

Posted by timothy
from the honey-it's-not-that-you-don't-trust-me dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Server Trusts Samba4 Active Directory

Comments Filter:
  • by symbolset (646467) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:48PM (#29705133) Journal

    But the supreme court may void software patents, so it might not spring.

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:01PM (#29705247) Homepage

      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.

      • by grcumb (781340) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @07:46PM (#29707055) Homepage Journal

        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.

        Well, that explains the move to 64-bit. We were at risk of over-running the lower bound of the signed long integer that would have been required to express this new depth of loathing. Now, they're good until at least 2038. 8^)

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Wow, how the hell did that get modded "Informative"? The mods are clueless, that should be +5 Funny.

          That was a joke people, get it? Lower bounds of loathing? 32 bit signed integers are orders of magnitude smaller than 64 bit signed integers, so the lower bounds of a signed integer are much much higher for a 64 bit operating system than with a 32 bit, which means the move to a 64 bit operating system was in order to increase the amount of bullshit we'll tolerate. Get it now?

          Oh well, I tried.

          That was good m

          • by erroneus (253617)

            Well, I didn't really WANT to get it, but now that you have made me get it, now I get it. I'm not laughing and I certainly won't use that joke any time soon. It might work well on the big bang theory though.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by RocketRabbit (830691)

        Microsoft is fine with Open Source. Hell, they are actively supporting it. After all, Open Source is mainly a way to get geeks to do work for you for free.

        However, Microsoft is an avowed enemy of Free Software. Free Software is not the same thing as Open Source. This is something that most people don't realize, as your comment indicates.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Lennie (16154)
          An other big misconception is, Free Software doesn't need to be free (as in beer). I think a lot of people don't understand that either.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wizardforce (1005805)

      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.

    • by lbbros (900904) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:28PM (#29707375) Homepage
      I have to point out that the Samba developers worked with the SFLC (so, lawyers) before getting to work with the specifications they had received.
  • Oh, great (Score:5, Funny)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:50PM (#29705155) Homepage

    Windows Server will now join, trust and replicate a Samba-based Active Directory using Microsoft-native protocols.

    Now I have to get ready for the 4 horsemen, rain of fire and the end of time.

  • It's a nice story... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rcolbert (1631881) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:51PM (#29705159)
    ...and good to know the hard working Samba team came away from Redmond feeling positive about the progress that was made. 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.
    • by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:58PM (#29705219) Journal

      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.

      • by rliden (1473185) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:17PM (#29705345)

        I'm kind of surprised you don't get what's going on here. MS sees a way to make money from open source. I doubt they'll trumpet that from the rooftops, but I think it's exactly what's happening lately. This will be a selling point for Server 2008 and another reason for MS customers to upgrade from Sever 2003 to 2008. So this potentially has the ability to increase upgrade sales to existing customers and provide possible sales to new multi-platform customers.

        Everyone is so worried about the MS of 10 years ago that I think they're missing the dynamic now. Free and/or Open Source software and platforms aren't going away. If you can't make your competition leave then you might as well capitalize on them and make money. MS has far more to gain from interoperability with Linux, BSD, and other open source platforms than they do from not working together (it's just taking a long time for the boardroom to move it in that direction). FOSS on the other hand has far less to gain, in my opinion, by working together and everything to gain by not making things work together since the main business model of FOSS is support service oriented.

        I think what we're seeing with this and their VM offering is to make themselves a viable player with Linux in the server arena.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I'm kind of surprised you don't get what's going on here. MS sees a way to make money from open source.

          Get back to me in five years, and we'll see how this plays out. I'd love to see MS back away from its old policies, but they actually need to do it before I'll give them credit for it.

          • by cetialphav (246516) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @04:09PM (#29705703)

            I think the point here is that Microsoft's behavior is being driven by the market. The market is clearly saying that they like a lot of the FOSS solutions. If Microsoft tries to pretend like these solutions does not exist, then they will allow a software ecosystem to develop in which they have no influence. A dominant player simply cannot allow that to happen.

            In the case of FOSS, there is no way to bankrupt or buyout the competition. They still try to compete with marketing FUD, but it is obvious that that is only good for trying to slow the growth of FOSS.

            This isn't about Microsoft turning over a new leaf. The real story is that market acceptance of FOSS solutions has grown to the point where none of the major players (including Microsoft) can afford to ignore it. For someone like me who has used Linux seriously for 15 years, seeing this kind of growth and acceptance is amazing. Linux used to be ignored, but now it is respected.

            • by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @04:23PM (#29705801) Journal

              In the case of FOSS, there is no way to bankrupt or buyout the competition. They still try to compete with marketing FUD, but it is obvious that that is only good for trying to slow the growth of FOSS.

              That leaves the legal route, and that's what I'm worried may be employed here down the road. I hope the Samba developers obtained a rock-solid agreement allowing them to use the results of the collaboration in the Samba project, now and in the future. I'm concerned that the company may attempt, without the knowledge of the MS developers who probably had a blast doing this, to argue that anything in Samba4 written after this project having to do with AD interoperability is covered by patents relating to AD, or that it descends from MS intellectual property accessed while they were at Redmond, etc. IIRC, one of the Linux NTFS coders had to refrain from working on the functionality for some time after working at Microsoft due to contract stipulations, slowing the development of stable write capability (this was years ago, so I could be way off here).

              I can see how this is a possible sign of a culture change at Microsoft (and for that company's sake, I hope the EEE culture is withering away), but I can also see a few ways this could go horribly wrong based on the company's past behaviour. Their future behaviour will determine whether this was a good idea, and that's why I remain skeptical.

              • by hedrick (701605)
                You're thinking of copyright. Patent doesn't have to do with whether MS cooperated in developing the code. It (unconstitutionally) controls the use of ideas, not expression. Using cleanroom techniques don't help. However if MS help allowed more advanced AD concepts to be used in Samba, it might make it more likely that they could be accused of infringing a patent.
            • I think the point here is that Microsoft's behavior is being driven by the market. The market is clearly saying that they like a lot of the FOSS solutions. If Microsoft tries to pretend like these solutions does not exist, then they will allow a software ecosystem to develop in which they have no influence. A dominant player simply cannot allow that to happen.

              It's nothing new, either. If you poke around various Microsoft websites, you will, for example, see that there are a lot of materials on running PHP on top of Windows/IIS/MSSQL stack, or even Windows/Apache/MSSQL. The reason, naturally, is that PHP is simply too popular to ignore, and directly supporting it on your platform is simply better for business.

              Another such example is JDBC type 4 (that is, native Java - no API calls, so it's fully portable to any platform Java itself runs on) driver for MSSQL.

          • What makes you think this is a new policy? It's exactly the same policy that they had with regard to the web circa 1995. Remember Windows 95? Didn't ship with a web browser at all, because Microsoft didn't think that the Internet would catch on. It did include MSN (and, I believe, AOL and Compuserve) clients, but no browser. IE 1.0 was rushed into the Plus Pack, once they realised that people were starting to use this 'web' thing, liked it, and weren't going to switch to MSN.

            Over the next couple of ye

        • by Nikker (749551)
          Samba won't be production ready for a while yet so server 2008 isn't compatible with anything right now. Right now what they can say is that if you deploy Server 2008 now when Samba 4 comes out of testing you will be able to... replace your 2008 servers with it?
        • Everyone is so worried about the MS of 10 years ago that I think they're missing the dynamic now.

          Spot-on. Microsoft is undergoing some radical changes from within, but one thing they won't change is their aggressive competitiveness. Anyone who still thinks that MS is still banking on dominating the desktop hasn't been paying attention. MS is moving very aggressively into the application server space (Sharepoint, Dynamics), the cloud (Live, Azure, Bing), Rich client (Silverlight), and non-desk-bound computing (Surface, Courier). They have a large pile of cash, they have been busily hiring some the

      • 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. Thei

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:53PM (#29705173)
    We can't repel firepower of that magnitude! Their patent portfolio is operational!
  • I look forward... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by glitch23 (557124) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @02:54PM (#29705183)
    to being able to implement this at home and at work to word towards replacing Windows Server 2003.
  • by Wowsers (1151731)

    "Microsoft Windows" and "trust", do those two even go together?

    • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:07PM (#29705283)

      "Microsoft Windows" and "trust", do those two even go together?

      only when joined together with the word 'anti'.

      • I was going to ask why MS would be anti-Windows, but then I remembered, Balmer wants to fsking destroy all windows, with which he wages the fight with chairs...

    • Wowsers, if Microsoft is so untrustworthy then why do so many free people around the world make a voluntary choice to purchase their products?
      • Popularity != trustworthiness, particularly regarding a company with a long, well-documented history of anticompetitive practices and protocol-busting behaviour.

        I'm amazed so many people are willing to trust MS management's motives so easily. Maybe after they've gone a few years working with outside, even open-source developers, without pulling any technological or legal stunts to later eliminate those projects, will I be prepared to look kindly upon any effort involving MS.

        Perhaps I'm just paranoid, or ma

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Vancorps (746090)

          I have to disagree with your statement about popularity. If the majority of people didn't trust MS they wouldn't keep deploying it. That means that MS hasn't violated the trust of the majority and quite frankly, no one can please everyone.

          While I agree that Microsoft shouldn't be trusted I understand that the majority of businesses out there do trust MS and only use basic functionality which in the Windows world simply works. Those of us that try to do unique things run into problems so we like flexible so

        • by DAldredge (2353)
          I am equally amazed that so many people trust RMS.
          • Me too. He is a utopian. I don't trust utopians.
            • by DAldredge (2353)
              Utopians don't call for the punishment of those who disagree with them.
              • Utopians don't call for the punishment of those who disagree with them.

                Maybe, but then they get impatient and start cracking heads. Do you think Pol Pot got started by hurting people? That's certainly where he ended up.

      • Even the Mac vs. Windows commercials, they start out "Hi, I'm a Mac," "And I'm a PC." Microsoft has very skillfully indoctrinated the PC-buying public in the USA to believe that Microsoft operating systems are the only thing that will run on an x86-based, non-Macintosh desktop computer.

        "Choice" is anathema to Microsoft. Gates, Ballmer, Mundie, et alia want Windows on every PC in the world, and they are willing to use every means, legal or otherwise, to convince people (especially clueless executives) tha
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sponge Bath (413667)

          "Choice" is anathema to Microsoft.

          Steve Jobs to the rescue! You can get your Macbook Pro in any color, as long as it's silver.

        • Even the Mac vs. Windows commercials, they start out "Hi, I'm a Mac," "And I'm a PC." Microsoft has very skillfully indoctrinated the PC-buying public in the USA to believe that Microsoft operating systems are the only thing that will run on an x86-based, non-Macintosh desktop computer.

          You give a very strange example, considering it's an Apple ad. So far as I can tell, it's rather Apple indoctrinating public to believe that Macs are not "PC", hence justifying the higher price for the logo, as well as all their hardware/software tie-in practices, and clearly separating the closed Mac ecosystem from everything else.

      • why do so many free people around the world make a voluntary choice

        Same reason politicians get elected!

      • by tepples (727027)

        why do so many free people around the world make a voluntary choice to purchase [Microsoft] products?

        People purchase Xbox 360 products because they find Nintendo and Sony products less desirable. In the case of PCs, people make a voluntary choice to buy a computer; a Microsoft product just comes with it because there often aren't any computer stores in town that build home PCs with something other than Windows.

  • When I saw this article, my first thought was this was something Microsoft was doing just to show the EU that they would work on outside "vendors" to get them to work with their protocols.

    Vendors is in quotes, as an open source project team really isn't a vendor.

    • Re:EC mandate? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by raddan (519638) * on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:42PM (#29705543)

      Vendors is in quotes, as an open source project team really isn't a vendor.

      True, but it also gives Microsoft the most bang for their buck, since by working with Samba developers, the information gets out there for everyone to see. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft requires you to pay for their documentation. Samba's interoperability is documentation in a real sense (and source code is almost always better documentation than something that a technical writer came up with), and this lowers the barrier to getting that information. I think that the EU will view this favorably, which is probably why Microsoft is doing this.

      As a side note-- my gut feeling is that nowadays, Microsoft's closed-off protocols are a hindrance to them. At this point in the game, the lock-in is well-known and I think that works against Microsoft with many sysadmins planning new deployments. If, on the other hand, there is a large and open software ecosystem, sysadmins will look on Microsoft products more favorably. E.g., Exchange is quite full-featured as a groupware platform, relatively scalable, and fairly easy to use, but lock-in, cost, and infrastructure requirements are problems. But if someone can set up a Samba4 AD and run Exchange on top of it-- or even better, the other way around-- now we're talking. Microsoft's attitude up to this point, though, has made many people (me included) simply work to ditch the existing Microsoft software we use.

  • by jimicus (737525) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:38PM (#29705511)

    Microsoft have been working with the Samba folks for some time [zdnet.com]. I suspect this is more to shut the EU up than because they really want to, but if that's their purpose then starting to enforce patents against the Samba team would almost certainly be a most efficient foot-shooting exercise.

    If I am being perfectly honest, the only frustration (and I'm sure it's got more to do with a lack of resources than a lack of talent - Samba probably needs about four times as many developers who know the protocol backwards and inside out, problem is most of them probably work for Microsoft) is the glacial speed this is all moving at. AD was introduced with Windows 2000, the Samba team have been working on getting Samba 4 out for years and it's still only alpha code. Frankly, only being able to provide something equivalent to an NT4 domain looked quaint four years ago. Today it's downright embarrassing for anyone claiming that F/OSS is functionally equivalent to Active Directory.

    (note to F/OSS advocacy trolls: I am well aware that AD is little more than LDAP/Kerberos under the hood. When you compose your flames, perhaps you would be so good as to explain exactly how one can manage a network full of Windows workstations with the level of control AD policies offer using nothing but F/OSS software which has reached a reasonable level of stability. NT4 policies are a pretty lousy substitute.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)

      >I suspect this is more to shut the EU up than because they really want to

      Considering pretty much all IT shops are mixed shops, Im sure every MS rep gets an earful about how about a company with a few linux-based NASs or servers dont integrate with AD. MS is now in the position where it needs to embrace a lot of OSS or their customers will revolt. I suspect the MS of the 90s is behind us. The market is just too diversified and competitive now. Fixing SAMBA is something that should have been done years a

      • by jimicus (737525)

        Hopefully, SAMBA4 will really be headache free.

        I believe that is the general idea - AIUI the plan is to replicate AD domain controlling/file/printserving with 100% compatibility.

        Whether or not it's achievable this side of 2011 I don't know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grcumb (781340)

      I am well aware that AD is little more than LDAP/Kerberos under the hood. When you compose your flames, perhaps you would be so good as to explain exactly how one can manage a network full of Windows workstations with the level of control AD policies offer using nothing but F/OSS software which has reached a reasonable level of stability.

      As others have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, you don't have to. With a proper trust relationship now possible, you can actually use the same MS AD management tools yo

    • by Spit (23158)

      explain exactly how one can manage a network full of Windows workstations with the level of control AD policies offer using nothing but F/OSS software

      The intricacies and problems of managing a Windows desktop LAN are decidedly Windows' own eccentricities; they just don't exist when using other platforms. So please don't point this out as a problem with free software when it's the commitment to expensive and unwieldly non-free software that's the issue.

  • A trap? MS spent a week of developer time in cooperation with a Linux team for the express purpose of allowing interoperability. This is a level of cooperation that has previously been unheard of in the Linux community, with well publicized lawsuits filed in an attempt to get a hint of cooperation. Microsoft working with the Linux community at this level has previously only been dreamed of.

    All this and some idiot has the audacity to think it might be a trap? For goodness sake, be grateful that it was possib

    • Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by symbolset (646467)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ClosedSource (238333)

        So a company received money from MS after negotiating and signing an agreement and it's MS's fault that they are going under because they refuse to give them more money.

        As far as IBM and MS are concerned, it was always an uncomfortable alliance and it wasn't as if the larger IBM wasn't used to playing hardball in the big leagues.

        Besides, it was clear that IBM didn't didn't consider OS/2 to be a priority because they were very quiet in their promotion of it. There had more ads for the PC jr (with its chickle

        • Personally, until NT4 came out, I was pretty squarely in the OS/2 camp... Despite it's higher costs for development, and production deployment compared to NT 3.5x. It was by far my preferred Os of choice for BBSing. I think NT4 pretty much changed that in my mind. It wasn't until around 2001-2002 when Linux started to even become an option in my mind, and even then...

          I'm actually pretty happy to see the Samba interaction happen, and it probably is a result of the EU antitrust actions, as the Samba team

    • MS has put an awful lot of time, effort and money into forging a reputation for generally being The Bad Guy. They're particularly known for their ulterior motives. Given this, I don't think anyone can claim to be surprised when MS do A Good Thing and it's generally viewed as a possible trap. Sure, we can't judge purely on these circumstances, but right now there's not a lot to suggest this is any different from the other times MS has done Good Things.

      I hope it's not a trap, I really do want MS to become
  • This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Orion Blastar (457579) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ratsalbnoiro}> on Saturday October 10, 2009 @04:14PM (#29705741) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by onefriedrice (1171917) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @04:54PM (#29706025)

      ... but it can replace Windows on the server as Unix and Linux are designed as server operating systems.

      Unix (and by extension Linux) makes for an excellent general purpose operating system. Just because it was developed before desktops and graphical user interfaces doesn't mean that it isn't fully capable for such use any more or less than Windows (which was morphed from DOS). Mac OS X is an example of a very capable desktop operating system built on Unix. A general purpose operating system like Linux is "designed for" whatever people have built on top of it, and desktops running on top of *nix and X11 are not recent occurrences. Nowadays, X11-based desktops are extremely capable, and the development gap between Windows and such desktops has essentially been closed in the minds of many users.

      So, let's drop the meme that Linux is designed for servers (thereby implying that it isn't designed for desktops or something). Instead, let's acknowledge that it is a good general purpose operating system which scales well from small devices to servers to desktops, and anything in-between. It just doesn't make sense to continue saying Linux was "designed as a server operating system" when it has really been designed for much more than that.

      • Is there an implemented open standard that does what Active Directory does?

        • So then, the parent talks about operating systems, and you talk about a protocol, that is used by a server.
          There is nothing in AD that cannot be implemented on Unix systems, and for all I know it is being developed as we write.

      • Linux is still lacking the smoothness of Windows 7 if we want to compare desktops. I love open source and am generally an advocate of it but open source really excels in the server arena. I have found Linux on the desktop to be cumbersome, slow, and kludgey. Each time I try it, I am met with frustration - some of this may be me, I admit but I am good at troubleshooting things. It feels like when something goes wrong with Network Manager, it is a bear to diagnose and fix. When I post questions after leg
        • by lamapper (1343009)
          No its not, stop spreading FUD! You obviously have not purchased a Linux computer from a Linux vendor (i.e ZaReason, System 76) and run Beryl on it. Vista is lame by comparisons. Windows 7 still is lackluster in comparison.

          Smooth, lmao, Any Linux distro (there are many) running Beryl on hardware designed to be open (not proprietary) is real smooth. Looks more professional also. Hey another plus, all that extra memory that Vista (and Windows 7 is just Vista +) operating system eats up; is left availab

          • by Jaktar (975138)
            Beryl = string

            you = cat

            You probably get endless hours of entertainment wiggling your windows and rotating your workspace on the cube don't you?

            I built my system. It's run WinXP, Vista, Win7, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Suse, and more. Default install of Win7/Vista looks more professional. Beryl is just candy. With some UI mods, any *nix can look as good if not better than Vista/Win7, but that would be purely an individual taste.

            TBH I don't care much about RAM utilization. Most people have enough that they'd be

          • by udippel (562132)

            As an only-used-FOSS-for-the-last-10-years person, I am unhappy to disappoint you. Was playing with W7, Build 7600(?) today; and not in a Microsoft shop, and found it 'smoother' than my best install of you-name-it FOSS. The highlighting was very clear, the system easy to be used, the task list showing all the previews, and all the previews of Firefox tabs above the icon, and everything came up and disappeared in an 'elegant' manner. It felt 'effortless'; while my similar exploration of Vista, of two years a

      • by dickens (31040)

        ..Windows (which was morphed from DOS).

        or rather imitated DOS with tech from VMS (which they've admittedly taken to undreamed-of heights)

      • Re:This is good news (Score:5, Informative)

        by cbhacking (979169) <<moc.oohay> <ta> ... isiurc_tuo_neeb>> on Saturday October 10, 2009 @07:51PM (#29707083) Homepage Journal

        Windows (in the modern sense) has nothing at all to do with DOS aside from including a 16-bit virtualization layer (in the 32-bit versions) and R/W support for its filesystem (not that you'll see many FAT16 volumes these days).

        Windows, or more correctly NT, was designed from the ground up to be 32-bit, multi-user, preemptive multitasking, support multiple APIs and/or ABIs (DOS, Win16, Win32, OS/2, and POSIX), be portable (the DOS-based Windows versions used assembly heavily, which made them fast and lightweight, but prone to bugs and impossible to port; NT is almost entirely C and has been ported to several completely different architectures), and be suitable for servers and workstations (not, initially, home computers). The lead designer of NT (and author of much of its kernel), Dave Cutler, used to be one of the leaders on VAX/VMS and other projects by DEC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler [wikipedia.org]

        Claiming that Windows was "morphed from DOS" indicates either a stunning lack of knowledge about the modern software world (the last Windows version in any way based on DOS was ME, which was quickly replaced with the NT-based 2000 and XP), or that you are simply a troll.

      • by tepples (727027)

        Instead, let's acknowledge that it is a good general purpose operating system which scales well from small devices to servers to desktops, and anything in-between.

        Sure, it scales from small devices to servers, but the in-between is full of hardware manufacturers who decline to help developers of Linux, CUPS, SANE, etc. build and maintain drivers.

  • You guys didn't have to provide them with interoperability testing and access to developers.

    Thanks.

  • The EU forced open much of the Microsoft protocols in their recent ruling. They forced Microsoft to document everything allowing Samba to do its work with much greater ease then simply trying to reverse engineer. Microsoft did not have to provide material assistance but chose to do so even though the documentation of the protocols met the requirements of the EU ruling. And, while other Slashdotters have noted, it is moving at a glacial pace but still has all the latest active directory features and once
  • See, I don't like MS and have my itch with Samba for that reason, but most people that like MS are accustomed to the clicky-pointy interface for AD and will have a hard time to accept Samba just because it is too cryptic.

    Or differently speaking, bigger organizations (except govt.) will take this new possibility into account because of the cost reduction potential (they only need a few very bright people to keep this running for a very big, otherwise license expensive infrastructure).

    For middle class organiz

    • by Shados (741919)

      For large organizations, that obviously makes it easy to set up horizontal-scaling Samba installs for anything that needs more hardware than it does software. With commercial software, that ends up far too expensive, so the time the unix sysadmins will be spending on setting this up will be worthwhile (and easily pushed to thousands of machines if needed, at no additional cost beyond the hardware and maintenance...which is most of the money, but still a significant saving).

      For small and medium size companie

Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec

Working...