DFS wrote:
> Robert Newson wrote:
>
>> Is this an American thing to act like a 5 year old[1] when being
>> asked for something specific to then go and sulk in a corner, or make
>> a big hoo-haa about something else instead of actually providing the
>> specifics?
>> SCO was asked to provide specifics about what IBM had done wrong on
>> numerous occasions and they failed to provide that which was required.
>>
>> Now MS has been asked to provide specifics about their protocols and
>> they've failed to provide that which was required.
>
> They not only provided specifics, they went beyond that and offered to
> license the source code, but the EU and the other whiners somehow deemed
> it "not adequate" or "too difficult".
There are many reasons why this is not an option.
Firstly, in order to use Microsoft's sources, you have to be running on
Windows. These sources are already running on Windows, there is no point in
having them.
Secondly, the main SMB alternative to Windows networking is Samba. Samba is
an Open Source package. The offer made by Microsoft specifically excluded
open source products. Hence, Samba could not use anything gleened from the
code.
Thirdly, all that was asked for was the Protocol. If Microsoft are unable to
provide the protocol, either their programmers are some of the stupidest
idiots on earth and have not defined the protocols or (more likely)
Microsoft is simply doing everything it can to make interoperability
difficult if not impossible. For the conspiracy theorists, there is a third
option. There is something in the protocols that should it ever come out
would get Microsoft in deep trouble.
In any case, it is reasonable to ask for the protocol definitions. Microsoft
still believes itself above the law. It is about time that governments
stood up to Microsoft and made it clear that no one is above the law.
Ian
|
|
