Proprietary protocols are a two edged sword. Microsoft has enough legacy code
to make it difficult to make major changes. If enough breaks, their reputation
for releasing buggy products grows.
> 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.
I don't think so. It would just get broken up into more and more teams to help
implement the code. It depends on if they start considering protocols "trade
secrets" or not. If they do, the lawyers will follow.
> 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.
They will make these extensions optional at first, then move to make them
manditory after a sufficient number of MS versions support it. (For example
some of the "extensions" to SMB from NT 4.0 SP3.)
It is when it breaks only *some* of the platforms out there that things get
messy. Since they have done things like this in the past, it is rational to
assume they will continue with that strategy in the future.
"Future marketing like this, will affect you, in the future!" - Plan 9 from MS
> 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.
I think that the strategy proposed by Microsoft is one they should pursue.
Currently they have few protocols that work well with each other, let alone
the rest of the net. (Especially if you have multiple NICs or unusual network
configurations.) Their current implementations have eaten up alot of
reputation capital amongst IS and IS management. Continuing down that path
will only lead to more pain and frustration amongst those who have to actually
do the work.
I mean, how long does it take for the average management type to figure out
they have been had? Much more of the same will cause more and more to figure
it out. Especially as Microsoft starts to turn the screws on licensing fees...
Interesting side [off topic] note:
In today's Wall Street Journal, Sun has a two page ad. It reads:
"Thinking of using NT for your critical apps?
Isn't there enough suffering in the world?"
It includes a picture of Sally Struthers.
-- Alan Olsen- 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/