Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows Your Rights Online

Microsoft's Slap at Samba 406

Posted by timothy from the thumbwrestling-with-satan dept.
Rollie Hawk writes "Microsoft's latest attempt to reconcile with the European Commission's antitrust rulings against the company may result in another victim. It seems their offer, if accepted, will strike a considerable blow at a leading competitor in the realm of file and printer sharing. The popular open source suite Samba stands to be the recipient of a backhanded slap from Redmond if the offer stands and the European branch of the Free Software Foundation is taking it personally. Though Microsoft is offering to make some information regarding interoperability available to competitors, it's only under the condition that implementations are not open source. According to FSFE president Georg Greve, "the proposal specifically precludes the information from being used in a free software implementation, such as the Samba workgroup server software." How is Samba being specifically targeted? Greve argues this is because "Samba is the only remaining major competitor of Microsoft in this market.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Slap at Samba More

Microsoft's Slap at Samba

Comments Filter:

  • Admiration (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bifurcati ( 699683 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:14PM (#12763193) Homepage
    You have to admire Microsoft's ability to turn what seems to be a damaging situation into something that might actually benefit them!

    • Re:Admiration (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ZephyrXero ( 750822 )
      This is why your operating system should be free (both freedom & beer). It's one thing to charge for an application...but without an OS, that computer is just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic. It's your computer, you should have complete control over it, not Bill nor Steve. It's only enevitable that people will eventually realize that the needs outway the want$...

      • Re:Admiration (Score:4, Insightful)

        by geekee ( 591277 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:40PM (#12763484)
        "This is why your operating system should be free (both freedom & beer). It's one thing to charge for an application...but without an OS, that computer is just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic."

        Without applications, a computer and an OS is still "just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic".

        • Re:Admiration (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ZephyrXero ( 750822 )
          Don't twist my words... you know what I meant ;) That concept includes all your basic applications too (browser, media player, burning/ripping tools, etc), it's all basic stuff you need as opposed to an advanced accounting package that's specialized to your needs, or perhaps a videogame...that's when it's okay to charge, but the freedom aspect should always be there.

          • Re:Admiration (Score:4, Insightful)

            by FireFury03 ( 653718 ) <<slashdot> <at> <nexusuk.org>> on Thursday June 09, 2005 @03:28AM (#12766270) Homepage
            That concept includes all your basic applications too (browser, media player, burning/ripping tools, etc)

            How do you define what the "basic" application is? To a web surfer, the browser is a basic application, to a photographer photoshop is a basic application.

            I think your arguement about everyone wanting a free(dom) OS is flawed - techies want a free OS, most non-techies don't care since they don't have the skills to use that freedom anyway.

            Personally I don't see a problem with paying for a closed source application if you need it, so long as your data is stored in an open format. Of course, in my experience, FOSS software is usually great for most jobs and I have no real need to buy closed software. And from my techie point of view, I prefer FOSS because I can fix bugs and hack in new features myself, but for the average user this is a non-issue.

      • Re:Admiration (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:25PM (#12763849) Journal
        I only wish this logic always worked. I think gas should be free 'cause without it my car is just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic ;-)

      • Re:Admiration (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hitmark ( 640295 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:51PM (#12764434) Journal
        forget about the code, what should be free are all present and future filetypes and network protocols.

        if those are free then anyone is able to build a competing product and the user can jump from one to the other with little or no problems. be it a open source or a closed source product...

        this could allso slove the problem of lost information based on it stored on formats that are no longer supported by any current application.

        i wonder, if someone found some old first gen ms office files on a floppy somewhere (if they even have a computer with a floppy drive) would they be able to read the content of them with current apps?

    • Re:Admiration (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eric76 ( 679787 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:13PM (#12763761)
      Microsoft is laughing at the court's ignorance and gullibility all the way to the bank.
    • i kind of admired it the first couple times they did it.. now it's just old tricks...

    • Re:Admiration (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:28PM (#12763881)
      Actually, no, I don't have to admire evil, no matter how efficient or effective it is. Evil is still evil, and never worth admiring.

  • Same Ol' Same Ol' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:14PM (#12763195) Journal
    As usual, Microsoft turns stinging defeat into a brilliant victory. I have but one question, however, how much of all of this does MS in fact actually own? I mean, all the base LANServer stuff was jointly developed with IBM, and I'm sure IBM wouldn't be too happy with MS trying to shut Samba down.

    • Re:Same Ol' Same Ol' (Score:4, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [srevart.sirhc]> on Thursday June 09, 2005 @01:14AM (#12765876) Homepage Journal
      Most of the base of both SMB/CIFS and DCOM is simply an adaption of the Open Group's DCE-RPC. So the answer is "Not that much."

      However, they may own enough of the aspects of it that make it difficult to interoperate directly with DCE-RPC or are involved in specific areas like login (with NT4-compatibility mode, for example) to make life somewhat annoying.

      IIRC, DCOM is basically a subset of DCE-RPC and omits the strong security stuff anyway.

      Finally, this is hardly a brilliant victory. I.e. Samba is hardly worse off today than it was before simply because this does nothing more than attempt to preserve the status quo.

  • Our offer. (Score:4, Funny)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:16PM (#12763217) Homepage Journal
    Sure! we'll make the source code available as long as people aren't allowed to look at it, think about it or talk about it.

  • As the old saying goes... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:18PM (#12763242) Homepage Journal
    "When you have dinner with the devil, make sure you have a long spoon".

    If anybody at the EU Commission is still in love with Microsoft, that should wake them up. I hope.

  • Will it be rejected? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NetNifty ( 796376 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:19PM (#12763251) Homepage
    Won't this proposal likely be rejected too then, seeing as IIRC a major reason the previous one was rejected was because it disallowed open source implementatins?

    • Re:Will it be rejected? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BrynM ( 217883 ) *
      Won't this proposal likely be rejected too then
      Which can be a win-win for MS. If accepted, they win. If not: "But you've turned down every proposal we've submitted. They've all been reasonable (at first glance)! The EU is just out to get us and stifle innovation." I wonder if there's a loophole that they're leading up to if no offers are accepted. Anyone know what happens then?

    • Re:Will it be rejected? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nevita ( 841283 )
      Except that the EU has already said that the MS proposal is acceptable, and they are proceding to "market test" it. If people want to beat MS on this, they need to make sure those market tests fail.

    • No: the commission doesn't have a choice here (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kylef ( 196302 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @11:43PM (#12765495)

      This has already been discussed at length by the industry analysts last week when the EU indicated that it was likely to accept Microsoft's proposal. See http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/200506 02/tc_zd/153327 [yahoo.com].

      There were effectively two requirements resulting from this case: Selling a version of Windows without Media Player, and Licensing the technology behind its Server protocols.

      It's the latter case that the EU can't do much about. Microsoft wants to charge a per-copy license fee for implementations of its Server protocols. The EU's ruling requires Microsoft to license the protocols, but explicitly allows the company to charge fees for the licenses. OSS projects hate this "per-seat" license because it doesn't work with their model of giving away copies without even keeping track of how many are in existence. So the OSS community is lobbying the EU Commission to reject ANY per-seat license fee, because it destroys their ability to use such a license.

      Unfortunately for the OSS community, the EU Commision doesn't just represent OSS groups: it also represents all the makers of proprietary software throughout Europe. And these proprietary software vendors actually support Microsoft's position here.

      See, per-seat licensing is an extremely common way to sell software; revenue is generated in direct proportion to the popularity of your product. These proprietary software vendors are scared at the thought that any company should be forced to give up this form of sales because it is "incompatible with OSS competition." So when the EU shops around this Microsoft proposal to industry leaders, most commercial software companies will probably indicate their satisfaction with Microsoft's per-seat license proposal. They certainly don't want to set up any legal precedents for future run-ins with Open Source competitors claiming THEIR license fees are "unfair."

      • In general I agree with your sentiments. However it raises a fundamental issue of antitrust law. (IANAL, etc)...

        In this case you have Microsoft, convicted of largely destroying the competitive marketplace, is now specifically precluding the one competitor they do have from using their documentation. THis is not a question of the fairness of per-seat licensing fees IMO, but rather a question of fostering a competitive marketplace.

        What I would like to see the EU do here is produce an opinion which says something to the effect that per-seat licensing is not acceptable here simply because there are no viable competitors left outside of the open source implimentations, and that such a judgement cannot be generalized to other companies where some semblance of competition still remains.

        The problem is that this proposal is specifically designed to protect Microsoft's monopoly in these areas. Furthermore, you have another issue in that such licensing fees could be further used to subsidize the sale of WIndows, thereby allowing them to drop their prices at will in order to destroy competition (hey, it would still be sold above cost once those licensing fees are applied against it).

        THis is not a good idea. But I agree that it should not be generalized too much. The market is not ready right now for too much pressure to be placed on closed source vendors as a whole....
  • It's stuff like this that can keep Samba out of many places where it could be very handy, and instead allows a Windows Server 2003 box in.

    I hope the EU tells Microsoft off.

  • The Dark Lord of the Sith (Score:5, Funny)

    by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:20PM (#12763264)
    It's interesting how Gates is looking more and more like Lord Palpatine in recent years. The chin especially looks similar. I expect that Gates will be wearing a hood soon.

  • I'm baffled (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:20PM (#12763265)
    Can someone explain to me how Microsoft sees itself in the position to make demands? They've been found guilty of anticompetitive behaviour and have been sanctioned accordingly. "Your honor, I offer to go to prison if I get 24/7 internet access, a laptop and a PS3." I'd be the laughing stock of the judicial system.

  • just remember... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:20PM (#12763266)
    the European politicians asked European computer industry representatives for whether this was a good solution. And since most of them have just as much stake in closed, proprietary solutions as Microsoft, they all nodded in agreement.

    Microsoft loves this because they know they can kill any commercial competitor they like through either FUD or just buying them; they just haven't figured out how to kill competition from FOSS.

    FOSS advocates need to be vocal and clear that this is not an acceptable solution and that it will hurt competition and that it will hurt the economy.
  • How is this different than anything else released under Microsoft Shared Source Initiative? everything else they have released stated that you can look, but can't share changes with anyone.

  • So what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 )
    I thought people/companies were free (as in speech!) to release their code under whatever license terms they wish. Does "free as in Free Software" actually mean "whatever the FSF deems acceptable"?
  • I thought there was something else that needed to be done before the EU would accept this settlement. But geez... a SETTLEMENT in a criminal case after being found guilty? Unimaginable. (Prior to being found guilty is common though)

    I hope the targetting of Open Source is rejected. If you want to write code and share it with people you should be allowed that freedom. Not having documentation hasn't STOPPED the SAMBA project... it just takes longer and is a bit more problematic when it comes to ironing

    • Re:Is this thing final? (Score:3, Informative)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      a SETTLEMENT in a criminal case after being found guilty? Unimaginable.

      That may be your first clue that this wasn't a criminal case. Sun Microsystems brought a complaint to the Commission of European Communities claiming that Microsoft's business practices went against EU treaties. Hardly the same thing as being tried for robbery or murder. You can read the details [eu.int] of the case for more.

  • When the terms of the settlement were announced several people brought up the way they could be used against open-source software and Samba was frequently mentioned.

    Why is anyone surprised?

  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:23PM (#12763301) Homepage Journal
    Has Microsoft shared interoperability info in the past? Sure if this is accepted it won't make the Samba team's job any easier, but its not going to make it harder than it already is. These guys are amazingly good at reverse engineering MS's stuff. Sure it would be nice if the EU made MS give away the keys to the castle, but really do we need it? All this doom and gloom is completely unfounded.

    Samba hasn't had this data in the past, and they've managed to write a darn good SMB/CIFS server. This won't end the Samba project by any means.

    I'm not saying MS shouldn't have to share the data, I'm just saying if they don't it won't be the end of the world

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sum.zero ( 807087 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:30PM (#12763382)
      once this data is out there it will become much harder [impossible?] for the samba team to say they reverse-engineered the protocols as opposed to receiving the information from a licensee in violation of ms' rules...

      then samba is considered tainted and is open to injunction against distribution.

      just my dos centavos.

      sum.zero

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stevey ( 64018 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:54PM (#12763611) Homepage

      According to at least one of the Samba developers documentation wouldn't be useful anyway:

      "There can't be a specification that's worth anything," says Jeremy Allison, joint lead of the Samba Project.

      "The source code itself is the specification . The level of detail required to interoperate successfully is simply not documentable - it would produce a stack of paper so high you might as well publish the source code."

      (Source [theregister.co.uk] - Found via the Implementing CIFS [ubiqx.org] book)

    • Re:So? (Score:2)

      by Xtifr ( 1323 )
      You're absolutely right, but I think the point is that MS has been ordered to provide this information in order to encourage competition, but they are blatantly and deliberately trying to lock out the only viable existing competition.

  • Fine by me. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jhfry ( 829244 )
    So now a non-oss company of SAMBA team members makes one closed source binary that contains only the necessary functions and sells the rights to distribute the binary for $1 to SAMBA. All of the tools that utilize that binary are still open, and any functionality that REQUIRES knowledge of the MS code, must be implemented in that binary. MS is happy, the Linux world is happy, I'm happy. Not as thrilled as if they would allow OSS to use this info, but still happy!

    • Re:Fine by me. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Locke2005 ( 849178 )
      Closed binaries from a single source would make it much more difficult to port Samba to new architectures. x86 users would be just fine, but anybody that wanted to run Samba on, say, a Cell Processor running Linux would be forced to wait for the "non-oss company" to support it.

      • Re:Fine by me. (Score:2, Informative)

        by jhfry ( 829244 )
        Assuming that the developers of the closed binaries were not interested in supporting multiple architectures. My vision is that they would a private volunteer org that supports the SAMBA project... the developers would be slected from those developing samba now, and would be restricted to contributing to the closed source portion to prevent the OSS tools from being comprimised by their knowlege of the MS protocols.

    • Re:Fine by me. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Quantam ( 870027 )
      Heh. The future of open/closed source interoperability.

  • What does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ridgelift ( 228977 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:28PM (#12763364)
    I don't see how this will affect Samba. They've never had access to how SMB/CIFS works in the past, how will not having access to it now affect them?

    If anything it shows how strong Linux & F/OSS is. I'd say it's more of a compliment rather than an insult.
    • Uhmm.

      It's definately NOT a compliment.

      There are many facets. MS could argue that licensees of its proprietary information providing source code to work with such information create a scenario in which a plethora of competing products could quickly and easily be created, interoperating with their closed standard.

      The fact that Samba was reverse engineered doesn't turn this into a compliment at all.

      Now, what I would argue is that if the Linux community really wanted to hammer a point home, a third party s
    • IMHO the title of TFA is misleading.

      "The proposal specifically precludes the information from being used in a Free Software implementation, such as the Samba workgroup server software."

      This is a long way from (a logical conclusion that) "Microsoft Wants To Ban Publishing of Samba". Well, OK that might _want_ to, but it only precludes free/open projects from using their specifications.

      The SAMBA team have not used published standards (because there weren't any) so far, so it should make no difference. Now,

  • Microsoft FUD again. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:32PM (#12763399)
    As the author of the now infamous "Longtooth Posts" here on Slashdot, I was, for a moment, extremely tempted to post one right here. (Version 3.0 is almost complete, for those of you who are waiting.) BUT this story about Samba, which is a tool that I use all the time and have installed in at least a dozen different companies, strikes close to home, and I must reply seriously.

    This is a bunch of bullcrap. The Samba team did not have that information available. In fact, the protocols and codes were reverse-engineered to obtain interoperability.

    But let's say, for just a minute, that Microsoft somehow wants to pull Samba into this ridiculous web of deceit. Nobody said that this has been approved already. And if enough people raise hell at the EU, this will be turned down. Besides, when someone points out that the EU undoubtedly uses Samba in possibly thousands of EU government computers (at various levels in government), this will get turned down extremely quickly.

    Microsoft can continue to turn defeats into stunning victories, but the tighter they close their fists, the more computers slip through their fingers. And there will be a day when no computer in the world runs anything with the name Microsoft on it. I guarantee it. Many empires that were bigger and more powerful than Microsoft are now but a footnote in a history book. Where is the Roman empire? I don't care if it lasted a thousand years before it fell. Microsoft will not be so lucky, especially as they piss off increasing numbers of individuals, companies, and even governments with their business practices, prices, and defective products. And even if Samba is somehow supposed to be banned from the EU, there are billions of people all over the world, and thousands of Samba programmers who live outside the EU, and rest assured they will continue to use and develop it anyway.

  • Asking to allow competition with all but its main competitor.

    What is all this about? Isn't it about allowing competition?

  • One dollar (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mariox19 ( 632969 )

    Putting aside criticism of a decision that would support this suggestion from Microsoft, what's to stop the Samba people from incorporating and "selling" their product for $1 (or Euro, or whatever), if the stipulation is that free software can't make use of this?

    It would of course require a change in license. But, apart from developers who have a moral objection to terms like this and would no longer work on the project, wouldn't it still be a viable project? Would people no longer be willing to work fo

    • Really, you don't want to charge a dollar. What you want to do is charge $1 for access to the FOSS library. So, you send your dollar to a FOSS advocacy organization, and you have licensed all software from their "library" of software. It's called bundling, right? Of course, MS knows how hard it is to stop piracy, so if someone downloads and runs the FOSS software without paying their fee, there might not be much they can do about it.

    • Re:One dollar (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 )
      I believe you are confusing free as in beer and free as in freedom. MS does not want free (as in freedom) software to even exist. Anything they (MS) propose to offer that has a catch regarding free software means that free (as in GPL) software could not use it. Charging a nominal cost will not solve anything.

  • Doesn't MacOS X use Samba? Microsoft has more to think about before they take down Samba than just the Open Source movement.

    If Microsoft keeps trying to force companies to choose, the list of arguments against Microsoft will only get longer.

  • A simple solution (Score:3, Funny)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @06:42PM (#12763507) Homepage Journal
    Charge $0.01 for a very liberal license to use samba. That keeps it non-free, and allows it to be used anywhere.

    • Re:A simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jridley ( 9305 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:59PM (#12764090)
      License fees:
      This is not free software, it is licensed per site. In order to use this software, you are required to pay one cent per site. For the purposes of this license, a site is defined as a planet with people on it.

      • Re:A simple solution (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Do you offer any volumn discounts?

        • Re:A simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jridley ( 9305 )
          Thank you for your inquiry. If you wish to deploy this software on uninhabited planets, the fee is discounted by 50%. Craft in space are considered covered by the license for the planet of the port they are registered in in the case of passenger and cargo ships, or the planet they were launched from or most recently made landfall on in the case of research vessels and probes.
  • The Samba team has done perfectly well so far reverse engineering SMB with no assistance from Microsoft. This just means business as usual for them. Of could come up with a mandatory authentication mechanism that can't be reverse engineered, but this would break backwards compatibility with all previous versions of SMB as well.
  • it makes since that they would agree to license the info to other for profit company rather than release the protocals into the public domain... I mean that would be good for us and their customers, but clearly it would be bad for them.

    It's "their property" and forcing them to give it away is hard even for most governments. Forcing them to license it to some 3rd (for profit) organization isn't evil...

    Just doens't help us., esp. with DCMA...

  • Easy solution... charge a penny for Samba (Score:4, Interesting)

    by carlivar ( 119811 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:09PM (#12763733)
    Perhaps Samba should start charging a penny for the software. And ignore "piracy". And oops, mess up the CVS firewalling and permissions so that everyone can get at the code.

  • Work with us? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @07:33PM (#12763918)
    It's funny how earlier MS said they wanted to work with the F/OSS community. It's things like this that provide reason why no one should trust MS.
  • Microsoft's latest attempt to reconcile with the European Commission's antitrust rulings against the company may result in another victim.


    Nope.

    It seems their offer, if accepted, will strike a considerable blow at a leading competitor in the realm of file and printer sharing.


    You're repeating yourself, and it's still no.

    The popular open source suite Samba stands to be the recipient of a backhanded slap from Redmond if the offer stands and the European branch of the Free Software Foundation is taking it personally.


    Repeating yourself again, using imagery to reinforce it, and again...no.

    How is Samba being specifically targeted? Greve argues this is because "Samba is the only remaining major competitor of Microsoft in this market."


    Samba is not a competitor to Microsoft. Samba does not run on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft does not sell or market it's SMB protocols separately from Windows. Microsofts SMB protocols have not been ported to any other operating system on which Samba runs [samba.org].

    Microsoft refusing to open source their protocols and methods does not disadvantage the Samba project, principally because nothing has changed anyway. Samba arose from reverse engineering SMB messages sniffed out on a network. And Samba engineers will continue to improvise, adapt, and overcome like they always have. That adaptability is what makes OSS better than proprietary solutions.

    Now go back to sleep, chicken little.

  • Open Letter to Hobbyists (Score:3, Informative)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @08:34PM (#12764343) Journal
    http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine .html [blinkenlights.com] I guess the world owes him a living. Notice the date on it.

  • so much slapping (Score:4, Funny)

    by pintomp3 ( 882811 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:08PM (#12764547)
    i'm bill gates, bitch!

  • What a load of tripe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keeper ( 56691 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @09:17PM (#12764597)
    It doesn't preclude "free" implementations. It requires the addition of a notice to any software which consumes it (similar to how the GPL requires you to include the GPL with copies of your software, or software you derive and distribute).

    This requirement makes it GPL incompatible, but hardly precludes free implementations.

  • Why not just go completely Open Source... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ghengis ( 73865 ) <SLowLaRIS@@@xNIX...Rules> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @10:45PM (#12765143) Homepage Journal
    Why not just write an open source "Samba Service" for windows which will provide the same functionality without relying on the "Inner Party" (redmond) to provide a closed solution. As an added bonus, you won't have to wait for a "hotfix" or "service pack" when security issues arise.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close