lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: Comments on Microsoft Open Source document
    On Nov 5,  9:41am, Richard Gooch wrote:
    > Subject: Re: Comments on Microsoft Open Source document
    > Horst von Brand writes:
    > > Anyway, much more disturbing is the idea of "extending" the "too
    > > simple" IETF protocols, and hinting at adding enough complexity and
    > > options that "others" will have a hard time selecting what to
    > > implement first, and how. If you look at the backwaters of the 'net
    > > (like around here), things don't work so great because sysadmins of
    > > even larger corporations and mayor ISPs around here don't get the
    > > basics straight... now think about what will happen if the
    > > "wounderfully extended" protocols become the norm. the IETF has an
    > > interesting enough life as is getting the "too simple" protocols to
    > > work sanely, hardware/software providers and sysadmins have a hard
    > > time understanding, implementing and exploiting the "too simple"
    > > stuff today. I.e., imagine MS-mess but on Internet scale, not just
    > > desktop-scale. If you can.
    >
    > Yes, it's clear that M$ thinks the immediate threat from Linux is that
    > they will loose the server market. However, scary as it is to think
    > that they will try to introduce (in effect) propriety protocols, the
    > picture you paint shows wht in reality it's not a problem.

    Proprietary protocols are a two edged sword. Microsoft has enough legacy code
    to make it difficult to make major changes. If enough breaks, their reputation
    for releasing buggy products grows.

    > As you said, it's hard enough managing a network with simple and open
    > protocols. For M$ to keep OSS on the back foot, they would have to
    > constantly "upgrade" (read: change in some subtle and incompatible
    > way) their protocols. These upgrades would have to come at a faster
    > rate than the OSS community could cope with.

    I don't think so. It would just get broken up into more and more teams to help
    implement the code. It depends on if they start considering protocols "trade
    secrets" or not. If they do, the lawyers will follow.

    > This is a two-edged sword. If M$ pushes a new protocol or "extension"
    > onto the Internet (or even into a corporate LAN/WAN), they will
    > *break* that network. It will break because it is simply not possible
    > to upgrade all components of a network at once, and older components
    > will not understand the new extensions. The result is that the new
    > servers will have to be put back the way they were.

    They will make these extensions optional at first, then move to make them
    manditory after a sufficient number of MS versions support it. (For example
    some of the "extensions" to SMB from NT 4.0 SP3.)

    It is when it breaks only *some* of the platforms out there that things get
    messy. Since they have done things like this in the past, it is rational to
    assume they will continue with that strategy in the future.

    "Future marketing like this, will affect you, in the future!" - Plan 9 from MS

    > So I don't think their tactic will work. Nevertheless, I think the
    > U.S.A. DOJ should take a good look at this internal memo.

    I think that the strategy proposed by Microsoft is one they should pursue.
    Currently they have few protocols that work well with each other, let alone
    the rest of the net. (Especially if you have multiple NICs or unusual network
    configurations.) Their current implementations have eaten up alot of
    reputation capital amongst IS and IS management. Continuing down that path
    will only lead to more pain and frustration amongst those who have to actually
    do the work.

    I mean, how long does it take for the average management type to figure out
    they have been had? Much more of the same will cause more and more to figure
    it out. Especially as Microsoft starts to turn the screws on licensing fees...


    Interesting side [off topic] note:

    In today's Wall Street Journal, Sun has a two page ad. It reads:

    "Thinking of using NT for your critical apps?
    Isn't there enough suffering in the world?"

    It includes a picture of Sally Struthers.


    --
    Alan Olsen

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:4.243 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site