__/ [ [H]omer ] on Thursday 17 May 2007 06:33 \__
> Verily I say unto thee, that thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
>
>> I've heard similar stories about Vista network perfomance being much
>> slower, and it has me wondering if anti-Samba measures in SMB2 are
>> to blame. According to Jeremy Allison, MS had the goal of breaking
>> Samba compatibility as the driving force behind SMB2 (which I believe
>> was supposed to ship with Vista). It complicates the protocol and
>> adds additional necessary transaction states, resulting in extra
>> network packets and slower response times.
>>
>> And some people wonder why we make such a big deal out of open
>> standards, open source, and vendor neutral solutions.
>
> That has to be the most despicable and stupid motivation for a product
> ever ... to break a competing product. Of course MS have done this
> before, many times, going as far back as DR-DOS. In fact it seems to be
> just about the only thing they do at all, WRT product development.
>
> And yes, 1500 packets just to delete a file on a network share, is
> ridiculous.
Remember what Microsoft said: "shipping is a feature, too"
I guess they don't want to tell people about hidden 'features' like Samba
breaking. Is it as bad as the hidden DRM 'feature'? Platform go backwards,
making less applications compatible (sabotaging deliberately at time) and
taking user choice away. Also, customer rights are being retracted (just
look at the EULA as well). If this carries on, the 'dark ages' of Microsoft
(and its pals at the RIAA) will leave us in a stone age.
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: most popular O/S, yet not most widespread
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 135 total, 1 running, 131 sleeping, 0 stopped, 3 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
