What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
95 Comments
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -8/+72Well done samba team :-)
- foodude, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35'Partners' = bitches, you say? In this particular case, I agree.
- geehossiphats, on 10/11/2007, -5/+37Linux "Partners" suck. Linux "Community" rocks.
- lassegs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25That sounds unlikely. As long as none of the really important distributors has signed the patent agreement, like RedHat, Debian and so on, this is a hard kick to Microsofts crotch
- jimmoses, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21By doing the MS deal, Novell gave themselves an selling point over other distros, particularly Redhat - that their customers would get protection from patent suits from MS. This was shrewd competitive move, but was seriously below the belt. This move by the samba team is an excellent way of the community saying "not so fast" to them. Go Samba!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17MS use the samba docs when making changes to their own implementation because the samba docs are written better than their own inhouse docs.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12From what I've read, Novell is A-Ok with GPLv3 and won't stall in updating software. They don't seem at all concerned with the Microsoft patent agreement.
- caffeinelover, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14What would prevent Novell from forking a GPL v2 version and then getting the assistance from Microsoft SMB developers in implementing anything that 1) they wanted or 2) that the GPL v3 version contained?
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Well.....
While they can still distribute it (the old GPL2 version) they can't use any of the new features. Can you imagine how crap todays Samba will be in 1,2,3 years? As more and more projects go GPL3 Novell etc, are just going to stall.
On the other hand I heard Novell were going to go GPL3 and just let Microsoft get fooked up. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10RH won't sign. They rejected the deal before it was offered to Novell. RH was formed as an OSS company by OSS people and believes in and understands the process. Their bottom line is dependent on OSS so there is no way they will sign a deal involving patents.
- jdollah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Um..who "doesn't" use the BSD stack for tcp/ip? And when was a BSD license the same thing as a GPL license?
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I'm not sure you can call it a design.
- scooper86, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9nothing I guess surely the code will still have to be under the gpl though so we will all get to see what they are doing to it anyway
- WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You're going to have to provide some sources showing that MS lifts code from GPL projects like Samba. While they might be *inspired* by it, it's quite a claim to say they're stealing GPL'd code...
- dcer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7cost, nothing else. The cost of developing one project might be acceptable, but developing many gpl2 forks of the programs switching to gpl3 would cost them a lot. samba is not the only one to switch.
And also why would Novell spend money just to please MS. Taking money is one thing giving it is another. Plus Novell already stated they will distribute gpl3 code. - ickusslime, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7To bad it doesnt really stop anyone from distributing Samba, Novell in particular.
- ickusslime, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It doesnt stop Novell... So im not sure what this person is talking about.
- CuCullin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You can use GPL v3 software along side GPL v2 software - so no, it does not screw every Linux distro.
- cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Wasn't SAMBA originally developed based on Microsofts work on SMB/CIFS?
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Why on earth would they care? They've dropped SMB1 in favor of SMB 2.0 in Vista and Server 2008.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Silverlight is made by Microsoft which works as a plugin for browsers. The (incomplete) open source equivalent is Moonlight. While they both _use_ .Net (or Mono,) it's a separate thing built on top.
- utlemming, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Except Novell is free to distribute under the GPL 3, and they have said they would. Novell got a pass with the "Mar 28th" clause
- WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That's wrong. Novell has announced their support for the GPLv3, and they will be distributing projects under that license as well as GPLv2. This might be a problem for Microsoft, as the GPLv3 extends any patent agreement made with one GPLv3 licensee to all other licensees, and so it's possible (though it would have to be proven in court) that Microsoft just licensed their whole patent portfolio to the entire Linux community.
- foreplay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This whole article is complete *****. it really boils down to the samba team releasing updates under gpl v3 because so far Microsoft is trying its best not to touch it with a 20 foot barge pole so they feel safe. there will be no typical embrace, extend and extinguish from Microsoft this time.
novell will continue to distribute what ever version they like gpl 2 or 3 and be laughing all the way to the bank since microsoft has already paid up on their partnership agreement. - jimmoses, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Nothing AFAIK, but they will have to do it without the Samba developers, which, while Novell have talented devs of their own, would cost a lot of money and effort. Maybe it'll be worth it, in which case there will be a competing samba... which the original samba can take core from.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7So? Why would Microsoft care? They've moved on to SMB 2.0 with Vista and Server 2008. Samba/XP/etc. connections to those two operating systems fall back on legacy SMB 1.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well, Linux is split by permissive vs. copyleft licences, distro vs 1000 other distros, Gnome vs KDE. So I don't think Samba's dual licence is going to have any more significant an effect than, say, MySQL's dual licence.
- jimmoses, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5You could, but Novell will not be able to distribute it without implicating MS a distributer, and MS won't like that because of the GPL3 patent license clauses. This means Novell users can use samba, but cannot get support for it from Novell, which is what they pay for anyway.
- amfantasy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3not to sound like a idiot but Novell can ship GPLv3 code....
- cplusplus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Quite corrrect. tar packages and uses those compressors. A very nice arrangement, I might add.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Nope. Apple doesn't link to any of the GPL projects they distribute. They only distribute GPL userland tools and libraries, release any modified code back to the community, and allow the user to update them, and so they fall within the acceptable use of GPLv3-licensed code. Since they own the license to the OS's kernel and bootloader, they are free to lock that portion down as they see fit. There are much more in-depth explanations in this thread on /.:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/2224257
In particular for this point, check out this explanation:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=247725&cid=19807913 - abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Silverlight is a cross-platform plugin for Safari, Firefox, and IE - I could be wrong with the supported browsers. Many people are hoping it turns out to be a flash-killer, although I doubt it will. It's worth checking out on Microsoft's site.
- foreplay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I completely agree Microsoft makes the finest documentation in the world. That is exactly why they were forced to write documentation for their networking protocols by the European union recently. they are still quibbling over the license for it though but its pointless at the minute considering samba is better.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3it is used for compression. the tar itself is a roll of files, ideal for tape archive. the compression is the next stage, it's that archive that gets compressed. the compression tools that are widely used, bzip, gzip, compress, etc, care not for the content of the file/directory which is being compressed. unix is about breaking a single job into many smaller parts, which really is what a double extension of .tar.gz is all about.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It _is_ bad if it means no sharing between those funded by MS and those not. But I don't think enough vendors have sided with Microsoft for this to really matter: no Red Hat means no Fedora, and there's no Debian, Slackware or Ubuntu either. I'm not entirely sure how even the Novell agreement affects openSUSE, since it's at least in name a community project.
- catwh0re, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3more proof that intellectual tech discussion occurs on slashdot, while uninformed speculation presented as fact runs the digg.com website
- krinn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Interesting... One of the biggest users of Samba is Apple. I wonder if Apple made a secret deal with Microsoft, and if they will move to the GPLv3 version.
- soccerfiend, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I already have Linux installs interoperating perfectly within a Windows infrastructure (Debian and Ubuntu). CIFS has nothing to do with Kerberos or LDAP, the other big parts of Active Directory. You only need to emulate NT4 DCs for Windows clients. Then again pgina.org is a better solution for windows clients and Linux/BSD servers.
FYI, MS spent millions on their CIFS implementation to mess with the SAMBA project. Something that took one guy a couple of months to fix. How do you feel about MS spending your money now? - fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Having seen the samba docs and MS's own docs, I'd have to disagree with you there. MS's documentation is some of the best in the world. It's one of the reasons so many developers program, or started programming, for Windows and MS technologies.
Because they make documentation that people can understand without reading everything else first. - doolittle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1sorted by chronology and compressibility... moore's law? :)
- prisoner24601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You know, it's actually looking like Novell might have had a real method to their madness here. "Thanks for the giant bag of cash Bill. We really enjoyed spending it. Sorry the whole indemnification thing didn't really last since GPL3 makes YOU unwilling to extend our agreement to our newer products. Not our fault you know. Tough break there. Oh well, we're off to the Bahamas. See ya!"
- daradib, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Distribution of software is acceptance of the software's license agreement.
- doolittle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Prior to GNU tar, there was no such options and you had to painfully compress a stream manually and redirect to tar if you wanted compression at all. Then to extract, you had to untar and decompress on the fly. Console redirection was a savior :)
man I am so old I had to do such things :~(~~~~ - CuCullin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or perhaps people who don't want the more restrictive v3 will just continue with v2. They can do that you know.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know how they think that they can accomplish this. If they cannot simultaneously comply with both the GPLv3 and any other agreements, they cannot distribute any GPLv3 software at all.
- FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Haven't you been reading Digg? If someone chooses to use GPLv2 software instead of GPLv3 software, they're labeled a thief. Read that again --- they're labeled a thief because they use software that's licensed to allow them to do things the way they want.
- daradib, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Distribution of software is acceptance of the software's license agreement.
- Asniper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1interesting
- FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7I'm going to laugh my ass off when I have Linux distros from Microsoft's Linux partners that interoperate perfectly with my Windows infrastructure, because Microsoft will have written the CIFS implementation. The rest of you, in the meantime, will continue to bitch about how it's Microsoft's fault that the reverse-engineered Samba doesn't talk to Windows right, even though there are a dozen commercial CIFS implementations that work perfectly fine because they actually get on the phone and talk to Microsoft.
Have fun emulating NT4 domain controllers. lol. - fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nothing. Money doesn't matter here, seeing as how Novell would have access to the actual MS specs, instead of the reverse-engineered specs Samba worked up. Plus...all those nifty new features won't help much if Samba remains perpetually behind the Windows network drivers. I mean, come on. Some of the "new" features in Samba debuted in Windows 95 or 98. Most of their features are at the Win 2000 level. If that's what the OS world considers new, then it's no friggin' wonder the business world uses MS networking.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is