Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Eclipse executive chides Microsoft on interoperability
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Commenting on Microsoft, Milinkovich said Microsoft sends
> | representatives to EclipseCon every year. Eclipse and Microsoft
> | officials in attendance then agree that a meeting ought to be set
> | up between the two sides. But afterward, "they never call,"
> | Milinkovich said.
> `----
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070306/tc_infoworld/86590
>
oops, sorry I do that too. Some company will ring and I can't be arsed
talking so when they say 'are you interested in coming down to see us' I
say yes, because then I can say 'pop your details in an email' and end the
call, but I have a email address I use that goes straight to /dev/null, set
up just for this sort of purpose. You see, if I say 'no I don't want to
visit' they harp on a bit trying to find out why I don't want to go, so the
call is longer.
> It is precisely the same story with Samba, according to its lead
> developer's hearing at the EC.
>
>
> Related:
>
> FLOSS Weekly 14: Jeremy Allison of Samba
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | 'In the section of the interview from around 33m30s to 39m00 Jeremy
> | Allison reports how he was told that the Microsoft team implementing
> | SMB2 were ordered to "f**k with Samba".'
> `----
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Vista is to ship with a new version of SMB, called SMB2. At
> | minute 40 in this FLOSS Weekly podcast, Jeremy Allison of
> | Samba talks of behavior that will flood the network with
> | 1500 packets just to do a network file delete. This will
> | turn Vista computers into a DOS (Denial of Service) attack
> | upon Samba based computers on the network.
> `----
>
> http://www.twit.tv/floww14
>
I would say that this part is very serious. We all know that smb needed an
update. The smb idea is a good one, the amount of information that can be
passed in a simple structured way, inspect a device to get it's
capabilities for example. It's down side is that it is wastefull, few of
the smb packets need to be as large as they are.
smb2 looks like it will be even worse. I would say that IT folk should
refuse to implement smb2 on their networks, but I suspect that wouldn't be
possible for long, though I admit I haven't seen details that suggest that.
Samba should by now have pulled away from the areas that don't really
concern them and is really just a waste of developers in their specialist
area, their job is as an smb packet interface. They should have been
concentrating on the next level packet types, they have enough of a hold to
ensure it's implementation. Now we have MS putting out the next generation
packet types and it already is looking ugly.
|
|
