Re: Comments on Microsoft Open Source document

Michael H. Warfield (mhw@wittsend.com)
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:01:08 -0500 (EST)


Richard Gooch enscribed thusly:
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Point in case... Kerberos in WindowsNT 5.0 (Windows2000). MS
is defining some "extensions" for some of "their" security issues. A
client can use an MS Kerberos server and access MS and non-MS services.
A client can use a non-MS Kerberos server but will only be able to access
non-MS services. It will not work with MS kerberosized services. Sooo...
In a mixed MS / Non-MS environment, if you want your clients to access MS
services, you will have to have a MS Kerberos server. Guess which way
that slippery slope leads...

> 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.

In the long run, it probably can't work... In the short run, you
better believe that they CAN make our lives miserable in this "Red Queens
Race" of protocol extensions designed with one purpose in mind - slow down
the OSS juggernaught...

What needs to happen is that the standards organizations, IETF,
IANA, IEEE, OSI, etc, etc, refuse to cooperate with Microsofts attempts
to "extend" protocols unless Microsoft provides complete reference
implimentations of all such extentions.

With any luck, the revelation that this is considered by MS to
be an acceptable business practice, will raise the awareness of the
standards organization to this form of sabatoge...

> Regards,

> Richard....

Mike

-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (770) 925-8248   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

- 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/