[LinuxUsers] Microsoft-buntu

Thu Nov 5 18:21:32 UTC 2009

Agreed - with one exception.  The extent of vendor lock-in they have
achieved is only because they control everything from the boot loader
all the way to the web protocols they use.

I believe LDAP is superior to Active Directory.  But if just ONE mail
server in an organization in an enterprise is Microsoft Exchange Server 
(All it takes is one influential department head to demand that he can
use Outlook to schedule his resources calendars, and you have a
corporate justification for Exchange Server) then you also have to
install Active Directory instead of LDAP.  Active Directory is, by
design, incompatible with standards-based LDAP - it is very difficult to
replicate or synchronize security information such as Passwords without
much headache and expensive add-ons.  You can not at all replace the AD
with LDAP alone - you always have to pair the two together at a minimum.
(more $$$)

Now all the user accounts are stored in a proprietary hive that nobody
can get access to without further licensing of proprietary technologies.
 API's to access Active Directory require Windows OS.  (more $$$)

Now you have to install Windows Server 2003 or 2008 for the Active
Directory to run on.  An expensive application requires an expensive
operating system to host it, right?  (more $$$)

On top of that, you can only use IIS (proprietary, $$$) to run a web
admin for the system, and you can only Microsoft SQL Server
(proprietary, $$$)  can sync accounts with the Active Directory (without
having to pay for additional software that would sync with Oracle, etc.)

Now at the desktop there is only support for Windows domains for sign-in.
 Technically you can create a custom GINA module (I think GINA is a
Generic Interface to Network Authentication, but don't quote me on
that.) but GINA is much more limiting than PAM modules.

So for Joe User... hitting CTRL+ALT+DEL at his Windows desktop, keying in
his password and being allowed to login...  goes over proprietary
protocols to the Windows Domain Controller, which then goes over
proprietary protocols to the Active Directory system to authenticate and
check permissions.  All on Windows Products.  Expensive ones.

If the Linux/MS desktop did exist...  MS would have to find a way replace
PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module) to achieve this kind of
integration.  I don't believe they could introduce closed-source
extensions to PAM, it would have to be open.  Which means, it would take
all of 1 week before someone wrote their own pam module to completely
authenticate that "Windows" desktop user from something like Mysql, or
a standards-based LDAP server.   I think that is great for the customer,
but when you make your money selling extremely overpriced enterprise
systems like Active Directory and extremely overpriced server operating
systems like Windows Server (as Microsoft does), then giving the
customer the choice of being open about the other backend systems just
doesn't make sense.

Vendor lock-in requires the vendor to control the complete system and not
allow openness at any single place.  Otherwise they would be only a
desktop OS vendor  (you don't think people choose IIS because it's
superior to Apache?  only because it's integrated better with Windows
user accounts...)

in short, I just don't see them giving up the market for SqlServer and
Active Directory and IIS, etc.   because if they were to use an open
kernel behind the scenes, they would essentially be embracing the use of
"Windows desktop" with Mysql, LDAP, Apache, etc.  and that is just too
much money for them to lose.

On 11/5/2009, "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger at pobox.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Chris Penn <cantormath at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For those that did see this on digg
>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46840
>>
>>  A former Microsoft Research employee says that Windows 7 won't stop
>> Linux from market domination. But he goes further. He thinks Microsoft
>> and its customers would be better off if the company ditched Windows
>> and instead built its own version of the Linux operating system.
>>
>> Chris...
>>
>
>Assume Microsoft is a rational, free market actor. Microsoft will
>continue to develop NT Kernel, Win32 userspace and .NET as long as
>there is a strategic competitive advantage to doing so.
>
>There is an undeniable benefit to using free software... costs are
>spread between many different corporations and individuals who may be
>closer to a given business problem and more able to effectively and
>efficiently solve it. Microsoft could reduce cost in this way. But of
>course it comes with a cost.
>
>It's hard for me to see why they wouldn't gradually shift over to a
>Linux or BSD kernel. There is no competitive advantage for them just
>as there is no competitive advantage for them to make their own
>peripherals or computer chips. There are exceptions of course
>(Microsoft makes mice, and Xbox consoles), but by and large I don't
>see how they are able to stick it to their competitors or extract
>money from customers due to having full control over the kernel. So if
>they were smart I think they would give that up. It is a waste of
>their resources.
>
>So move onto userspace... I think in userspace and applications is
>where they build and protect their brand. There's a lot invested
>there. Everything you connect in your mind to Microsoft products is
>userspace. So I can see them rationally wanting to hold onto that.
>
>Now one asks if it is a Microsoft strength to play nice with others
>that the relationship would work effectively. Microsoft has been
>engaged with standards bodies/working groups and processes for
>decades. Institutionally, they do know how to navigate inter-corporate
>relationships and politics. They have a partner system where they
>interact regularly with outside consultants, so I am sure they could
>adapt to interfacing with external free software developers.
>
>So as today we understand the meaning of "GNU/Linux" operating system
>(Linux kernel with GNU userland), maybe you end up with
>Microsoft/Linux at some point.
>
>And I think Linux is a better kernel for MS... they are used to the
>"wild west" of the PC architecture and market. I think it would fit
>their style more than a stodgy BSD kernel as Apple chose.
>
>-- John.
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxUsers mailing list
>LinuxUsers at socallinux.org
>http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers