Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft 10K Spells Out Its View of EU Commission Ruliing

  • Subject: Re: Microsoft 10K Spells Out Its View of EU Commission Ruliing
  • From: High Plains Thumper <hpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:15:37 +0000 (UTC)
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Single Cylinder Bikes
  • References: <4lgt8vF1rql1U1@individual.net> <1742935.Zb2KTxRTZf@schestowitz.com> <Xns982EC2BF858A1hpt@213.149.105.26> <hskes3-9qk.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk> <Xns9830C79D21E54hpt@213.149.105.26> <kpadnYV3ULJfeGvZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>
  • User-agent: Xnews/5.04.25
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1147919
Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:kpadnYV3ULJfeGvZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx: 

> After takin' a swig o' grog, High Plains Thumper belched
> out this bit o' wisdom: 
> 
>> It also may explain why a Windows server must be a primary
>> domain controller.  In earlier SMB protocol, a Linux
>> server could be a primary domain controller. 
> 
> Explain.  Did something change in Samba, or in Microsoft
> CIFS? 

It has been a bone of contention of which caused the push
(i.e. EU lawsuit) for Microsoft to release the protocol
ground rules for CIFS (SMB renamed in 1996).  Change has been 
always related to Microsoft making changes to the protocol but 
not releasing details.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/19/talking_pizza_and_pack
ets/ 

| Some people are also a little confused about comparisons
| between SMB and CIFS. In recent years Microsoft has been
| referring to the file sharing protocol that it uses as
| CIFS, and talks about SMB as though it is an older
| protocol. 
| 
| The basic fact is that SMB and CIFS are the same protocol. 
| The name change was largely a marketing move to include the
| word 'Internet' in the protocol. Since the name change
| there have been a few minor changes in the protocol, but
| nothing really major. The changes between versions of the
| older SMB protocol were larger. 

Problems have a history:

http://www.kernel-traffic.org/samba/sm20000427_20.html

| 5. FAQ: Samba Domain Controllers and Windows 2000
| 
| 22 Apr 2000 (5 posts) Archive Link: "w2k an 2.0.7pre4"
| 
| People: Oliver Malang, 
| 
| Oliver Malang upgraded Windows NT and Samba at the same
| time and his domain logons stopped working. He turned to
| samba-ntdom for help: "should domain logons from W2k to
| 2.0.7pre4 already work or did I just make a mistake???" 
| 
| Four people gave the same answer, making this not only a
| frequently-asked but a frequently-answered question: no,
| Samba 2.0.x does not support Windows 2000 logons. Samba-TNG
| does, if you are willing to experiment with it. 

2 years later:

http://www.rmschneider.com/writing/xp_and_samba.html

| News: 12 May 2004: Microsoft Update Breaks Samba
|
| According to The Inquirer, Microsoft update MS04-012
| (KB828741) breaks Samba.  The Samba team has released
| updates. 
|
| According to the Inquirer, after applying this Microsoft
| "fix" to their systems, users that access Samba file
| servers - most of which run a version of Unix or Linux -
| suddenly found it impossible to change passwords from
| windows machines, when prompted to do so as passwords start
| expiring.  As a result of the operation, they get the
| friendly message "You do not have permission to change your
| password". 

Six years later ....

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006042816483566

| GG: Yeah, kind of like that. Indeed, it would more be like
| -- sometimes even like the waiters are changing, from a
| French to a Spanish one, so you have to relearn the word
| "bread" every single time. Because Microsoft keeps changing
| these things and indeed keeps also adding fuzziness to
| their clients in terms of how exactly they do expect
| certain responses to be. So, through that client monopoly,
| they were able to dominate the server monopoly which is
| what the entire case is about, and I believe Andrew
| Tridgell was very good at explaining this, and also
| explaining to the Court in particular that this is not
| about "free riding" as Microsoft has alleged among other
| things, but rather about allowing competition and
| innovation. 
|
| He showed a very small palm-sized box which is a router or
| actually not a router but a router-sized device that is a
| -- well, you can think of it as a smart disk and the
| "smart" in it is Samba. You can plug USB hard disks into
| this device and put it in your network and embedded on that
| device runs Samba and serves the disks on the network. And
| that small box could possibly become an Active Directory
| server for several hundred people and could do all that
| work in this palm-sized box for which Microsoft right now
| requires a full PC. I mean, Samba has hardware requirements
| that are more than ten times lower than those of the
| Microsoft implementation.

And now, problems still exist with Linux and Microsoft 
coexisting:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=907868

| Article ID: 907868, Last Review: July 26, 2006, Revision:
| 1.2 
|
| An access violation is generated when a Linux-based client
| computer tries to access a domain controller that is
| running Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 
|
| SYMPTOMS
| When you add a Linux-based client computer to a domain
| controller that is running Microsoft Windows Server 2003 or
| Microsoft Windows 2000, heap corruption occurs on the
| domain controller. This heap corruption deletes data from
| valid memory addresses and generates an access violation.
| This behavior occurs when the client computer tries to
| access valid data on the domain controller. 
| 
| Note This access violation causes the domain controller to
| crash. 

Remainder of article describes a limited availability hot fix
requiring contacting Microsoft directly to obtain.

--
HPT
http://www.rmschneider.com/writing/xp_and_samba.html
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3628431

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index