> > 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.
> Alas, I have to disagree. Just for instance, let's take a look at a
> "extension" that is all around, and has been for years: SMTP gateways.
> Notes and, say, Exchange both offer SMTP and POP services, IN ADDITION to
> "cool" stuff that they do that non-Notes/Exchange users can't take
> advantage of (such as meeting scheduling). Does this break the server?
> No. Does it stop other SMTP servers from communicating with it? No. It
> works just peachy... but it works BETTER if you've got compatible client
> software. Using, of course, the proprietary protocols. So, no -- I do
> think that proprietary extensions, ESPECIALLY if they start to become
> de-facto adopted, could become quite threatening. Because, if a de-facto
> standard is adopted, what's to prevent Bill from changing the standard at
> some point, and only letting folks he likes in on how the new
> protocol/service works? Hell -- make it an umbrella, private committee
There's a wonderful little rule in US law. The antitrust laws would rape
him if he even came close to being able to monopolize protocol to the
point where he doesn't need to release information on it. Nothing can
stop OSS because it does not rely on commercial production. Besides even
if they came up with their own protocols, people would have it implemented
in linux the next day. Worrying about something like this is petty.
Thats my $2.50
~~Kev
-
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/