or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server: Apple replaces Samba for Windows networking services
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server: Apple replaces Samba for Windows networking services - Page 3

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

I think that -even despite the fact that you are so close to the fire as a Samba dev- need to be dragged back into the real world yourself. The fact that some companies contribute and use some GPLv3 code for some things, does not imply GPLv3 is not preventing other companies to do the same for other things.

Example from 'the real world': I've been working as a software engineer at various companies for about 10 years now, all of them who created very specific, industrial software, all related to IC design and production. All software full of highly confidential and/or patented, non-trivial

...



None of what you are saying is the least bit relevant. We are talking about the reverse engineered version of someone else's file system here. This isn't the hot new arcane technology we're talking about. This is simple stuff that everyone needs to be able to share and use to communicate.

SAMBA is the perfect example of something that is outside of the core business and is so far removed from your core competitive advantage as a company, that there is no value in keeping it proprietary.

There really is ZERO value to there being any proprietary aspects associated with it.

That includes both the source code of the implementation as well as any underlying patents.

Apple simply shouldn't be doing anything that makes the GPL3 a problem.

At this point, Apple users should be scared and suspicious rather than making up all sorts of lame excuses. Of course they are not but that's another matter.

If anything, this seems to be part of a larger strategic move away from open systems. Apple has begun to focus primarily on systems that are inherently hostile to Free Software (even of the GPL2 variety).
post #82 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

I'm not saying GPLv3 is bad or that Samba should not use it, just that it would probably see more use and more contributions if it had a license more like the BSD license. That would allow software companies to actively incorporate and contribute to the project instead of just using it as-is and deploying it alongside the stuff they write themselves. The example I gave where software companies often shun GPL licensed code or try to work around it in ways that allows them to use GPL code without 'infecting' their own codebase was just meant as an example to show how GPL licensing *does* in fact limit usefulness for other companies than just Apple.

The fact that GPLv3 asks even more 'freedom' from people using GPLv3 licensed code does not really help here. After everything I've read about GPLv3 I'm still not sure what good it brings compared to GPLv2.

I don't think you are really thinking this through. What company wants to contribute to something that can then be used against them in the marketplace? If anything, it is the GPL that is a more appropriate license for "interesting contributors" because it puts EVERY ONE on an equal footing including you, me, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle or some garage startup you've never heard of.
post #83 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by oomu View Post

NO you are WRONG !

you commentators are wrong about gpl2/3

about the reasons you think it's explaining why apple remove samba you are wrong : GPL 3 ask the same thing than GPL 2.

it just has new provision to protect the goal of GPL 2 in remote web services (it was a way to circuvment the GPL 2 : put the modified source code behind a web interface and "voilÃ*" : no need to distribute a binary and then to provide the source code to users !"

but for pratical use for Apple, it's NOT what you think.

if apple has a problem with GPL3 _OR_ Samba, it's not the reason you think.

-
it seems difficult to believe Apple can recreate a complete cifs stacks from scratch.

it's surely a fork of the samba project. else : wow !

-
Linux Torvalds is not against the gpl 3. He had doubts of the need, nothing else.

For the Linux Project, you have to understand EVERY contributors to the kernel KEEPS their property of their own source code.

So if you want to change the licence of the whole linux kernel project, you should ask the permission of all contributors. (it's a lot of people and companies)

And, the gpl 3 doesn't bring useful (or urgent) protection to the health of the linux project, so the kernel maintainers are not interest in re-licence to the GPL 3.

it's nothing else.

-
others project as samba or gnu (and others) ask contributors to give the property (or permissions) to the foundation managing the project to contribute to the main official trunk of the project.

it has advantages and defaults, it's a choice suiting whatever needs the project has.

-
please, you don't need to romance things or to add polemics to be excited by changes.

Apple doing its own cifs stacks ? WOW ! it's already "wowah" like that.

You are very, very confused. The GPLv3 does not close the server loophole you mention. There is a license that does that, the GNU Affero GPL (usually referred to as AGPLv3), which is endorsed by FSF and is GPLv3 compatible.

While we are at it, the GPLv3 does not just have a single new provision over the GPLv2, it reworks a lot of the language, and changes all sorts of things with regards to derivative works, patents, etc.

Also, Linus most certainly does have serious issues with the GPLv3, which can be seen every so often when a fight about it breaks out on LKML. In particular, he feels Tivoization is a good thing, and one of the explicit goals of the GPLv3 is to prevent that. If you actually did a google search for "Linus GPLv3" or "Linus Tivoization" and read through a few of the more recent list archives that came up you would know that, but here are some links to various things he has said about on the issue:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/17/303
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043&w=4

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=198002077 (a fairly detailed interview with him about a draft version of the GPLv3, but most of his stubstantive issues with it did not change in the final version)

There is nothing wrong with the liking GPLv3, and there is nothing wrong disliking it. There is something wrong with just making stuff up out of nowhere to justify your position.
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Oh, and your (bad) english and syntax, does not inspire much confidence in your understanding of licences...

And your (bad) manners do not inspire non native speakers to contribute to this forum.
post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEDIDIAH View Post

Apple simply shouldn't be doing anything that makes the GPL3 a problem.

The problem with the GPLv3 is that one gives up all rights to sue on any patent not just covering but even *related to* the technology in question. If Apple were ever to release anything under GPLv3, it could compromise a lot of their ability to make money off their work. As we all know, a lot of people are trying to duplicate Apple's successful products lately, and while Apple publishes a lot of source under BSD license (WebKit, LLVM+clang, streaming server, etc), they protect their core inventions from copycats.

IMHO, companies who participate in GPLv3 projects are pretty naive, and it will likely bite them down the line.

If Apple rolled their own CIFS/AD stack, I wouldn't be surprised to see them BSD it and pull a WebKit.
post #86 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

The problem with the GPLv3 is that one gives up all rights to sue on any patent not just covering but even *related to* the technology in question. If Apple were ever to release anything under GPLv3, it could compromise a lot of their ability to make money off their work. As we all know, a lot of people are trying to duplicate Apple's successful products lately, and while Apple publishes a lot of source under BSD license (WebKit, LLVM+clang, streaming server, etc), they protect their core inventions from copycats.

IMHO, companies who participate in GPLv3 projects are pretty naive, and it will likely bite them down the line.

If Apple rolled their own CIFS/AD stack, I wouldn't be surprised to see them BSD it and pull a WebKit.

IANAL, but I don't think this is correct. If you look at the GPLv3 license you will see:

"Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."

Note the phrase "the contents of its contributor version". I don't think that implies that you are granting a blanket license to "..any patent not just covering but even *related to* the technology in question". You are granting a patent license that covers the contents of the version of the code you shipped ("conveyed" under GPLv3 terminology).

I'd be interested to read opinions of *real* lawyers though :-).

Jeremy.
post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEDIDIAH View Post

None of what you are saying is the least bit relevant. We are talking about the reverse engineered version of someone else's file system here. This isn't the hot new arcane technology we're talking about. This is simple stuff that everyone needs to be able to share and use to communicate.

SAMBA is the perfect example of something that is outside of the core business and is so far removed from your core competitive advantage as a company, that there is no value in keeping it proprietary.

There really is ZERO value to there being any proprietary aspects associated with it.

That includes both the source code of the implementation as well as any underlying patents.

Apple simply shouldn't be doing anything that makes the GPL3 a problem.

Unless they want to stick CFIS support into the kernel for some reason...as in Solaris. Then GPL is a huge problem. There's no indication that BSD/MIT/Apache licensed projects suffers from lower levels of corporate collaboration/contribution than GPL ones.

Exhibit 1: Android.

Quote:
At this point, Apple users should be scared and suspicious rather than making up all sorts of lame excuses. Of course they are not but that's another matter.

FUD. There's no need to fear the removal of Samba in Lion any more than the removal of Java.

Quote:
If anything, this seems to be part of a larger strategic move away from open systems. Apple has begun to focus primarily on systems that are inherently hostile to Free Software (even of the GPL2 variety).

More FUD. Moving away from GPL isn't moving away from open systems. The release of LLVM and Clang under a permissive license is one indicator that what you claim is completely false and fearmongering.

Moving away from "free" software and toward open source is a good thing.
post #88 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobrik View Post

GPLv3 does not prevent anyone to use the software commercially. It just has conditions that Apple finds unacceptable.

So in Apple's mind it prevents them from using it

KRR
post #89 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgerbarg View Post

You are very, very confused. The GPLv3 does not close the server loophole you mention. There is a license that does that, the GNU Affero GPL (usually referred to as AGPLv3), which is endorsed by FSF and is GPLv3 compatible.

Heh, even RMS fears Google and isn't completely insane enough to create that large and obvious a schism. My read was that Google basically said to the FSF that if the draft 2 language went forward then GPL was dead to them.
post #90 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I am naive when it comes to this, but does this mean SMB is going to be a lot more reliable?

Seconded.

On a related note, I hope someday they put a default in OS X of not leaving friggin' DS_store files everywhere. Annoyiiinng.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #91 of 108
I'm surprised to read that there's going to be a separate release of Lion Server. I thought it was being built into the standard OS and all you had to do was enable it.

How will the separate release of Lion Server be different ?
post #92 of 108
I'd be interested to see if Apple is writing their own CIFS implementation. However I must slightly object to Jeremy's references of the companies using Samba. I can attest working for a company that sells a CIFS implementation to various large companies that some companies in his list have already purchased and/or are purchasing a replacement to the Samba solution and often one of the primary reasons is around GPLv3. Samba supporting GPLv3 does hurt Samba, regardless of whether Jeremy and/or team want to admit to this fact or not.
post #93 of 108
In order to hide .DS_Store files we have just edited our smb.conf file to include this line under [global]:

hide files = /.DS_Store/.*/

and any other invisible Mac files that show up on Windows.
post #94 of 108
I am surpised no-one has bought up the elephant in the SAMBA room , and probably one reason why Apple dumped them ... the disastrously delayed release of 4.0 final.

Seriously this is a complete embarrassment to the SAMBA team. I am sure Apple just gave up in frustration at the snails pace of development.
post #95 of 108
I just hope this means faster connection/authentication to Windows servers from a Mac. Using Samba, I sometimes have to wait for about a minute from choosing the connection to it actually opening up.
post #96 of 108
Enter 2012 February and lion after more than 7 months can't search smb shares via the finder... So much for the rhetoric and petty squabbles on protocols and licences apple made sure that the end user got effed at the end and the problem was transposed to them...
post #97 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

Enter 2012 February and lion after more than 7 months can't search smb shares via the finder... So much for the rhetoric and petty squabbles on protocols and licences apple made sure that the end user got effed at the end and the problem was transposed to them...

Mine searches SMB shares just fine. I can connect to windows machines and linux running samba. Check your network config and the home group settings in windows.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #98 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

Mine searches SMB shares just fine. I can connect to windows machines and linux running samba. Check your network config and the home group settings in windows.

Yeah let me just check it again cause this widely reported issue might simply be my imagination and it's not as if I spent the better part of three days for a workaround...
post #99 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

Yeah let me just check it again cause this widely reported issue might simply be my imagination and it's not as if I spent the better part of three days for a workaround...

Its not a problem with the Mac, NetBIOS/SMB in general is pretty unreliable and rather slow.
I have 4 SMB computers on my network (two macs named "Ratchet" and "Clank", a windows called "benjamin-pc" and a headless Linux server called "Denver").

benjamin-pc can see Clank and Denver from windows explorer, but it can't see Ratchet. Ratchet can see Benjamin-pc and Clank from the Finder, but not Denver. Clank can only see benjamin-pc from the finder.

I've never known SMB/NetBIOS to be reliable on a wireless network. On a wired network its far better, especially ones with a domain controller. I have no problem browsing SMB at work with a Mac.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #100 of 108
I guess you are one of the lucky ones then, what can I say, there's extensive feedback on this to apple and the support fora and it's to do woth lions implementation of smb2 and I too was referring to wired networks.
post #101 of 108

As I have already pointed out in comments in the linked-to articles, there are many commercial companies shipping GPLv3 Samba, and despite dire warnings from a competitor (who was recently purchased to take the SMB code off the market for any other users)  the companies I listed are *still* shipping GPLv3 Samba. In fact there are now more OEM users than when Apple first announced they were removing Samba due to GPLv3.

 

Here's a good link on a talk I gave on why GPLv3 is a better license for commercial use than GPLv2:

 

ftp://samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf

 

My gut feeling about Apple and GPLv3 is on slide 20:

 

"GPLv3 prohibits locked down “app  store” models, where devices will only install signed binaries from a third party whom they must trust completely"

 

Which tells you more about where I think Apple are planning to go with later versions of MacOS X.

post #102 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jra@samba.org View Post

As I have already pointed out in comments in the linked-to articles, there are many commercial companies shipping GPLv3 Samba, and despite dire warnings from a competitor (who was recently purchased to take the SMB code off the market for any other users)  the companies I listed are *still* shipping GPLv3 Samba. In fact there are now more OEM users than when Apple first announced they were removing Samba due to GPLv3.

 

Here's a good link on a talk I gave on why GPLv3 is a better license for commercial use than GPLv2:

 

ftp://samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf

 

My gut feeling about Apple and GPLv3 is on slide 20:

 

"GPLv3 prohibits locked down “app  store” models, where devices will only install signed binaries from a third party whom they must trust completely"

 

Which tells you more about where I think Apple are planning to go with later versions of MacOS X.

 

Jesus Jeremy are you so butthurt over Apple dropping Samba that you have to necro a year old thread just to spread some FUD about Apple locking down OSX?  You act as if the most popular desktop Unix in the world told you guys to go pound sand because y'all were acting like colossal freetards.  Oh wait, they did.

 

Here's a clue Jeremy, it's 2013 and Microsoft is almost irrelevant now.  That means people still engaged in a holy war against Microsoft are even more irrelevant.  No one gives a shit who is providing SMB and AD services except IT guys that STILL largely use win server in the enterprise anyway.  So Apple went SMBX.  Nobody cares.  Not Apple.  Not Microsoft.  Not OSX users.  Not Apple IT guys.  Nobody.  The largest desktop Unix in the world dropped your code and practically nobody f**king noticed.  The few that did just downloaded Samba from MacPorts and shrugged.

 

Given that you are deeply aligned with the GPL corporate shakedown team no kidding Apple dropped you guys.  Guys like Landley represent the real spirit of open source:  share the code, not use it to shake down companies for money.  Guys like you are proprietary in a different sort of way.  GPL as the one true FOSS way.

 

Your attitude is so 90s and in this case retro isn't cool.  Today Apache and BSD/MIT usage is on the rise and GPL usage on the decline and devs like it that way.

 

http://readwrite.com/2013/05/15/open-source-is-old-school-says-the-github-generation#awesm=~o8NetDzdLZyfFG

post #103 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


To put this in perspective, it also contains conditions that Linus Torvalds finds unacceptable.
http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/114336
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161


GPLv3 is an ideological move divorced from the reality of the GPL. It essentially allows the FSF zealots to retroactively change licencing agreements (although I believe the final version may have toned this down a bit.

GPL has as many bad features but GPL 3 went totally overboard. It has become a form of theft and actually reduces the freedom of the user and the programmer. GPL 2 was barable but as indicated zealots with twisted sense of reality have taken over.
post #104 of 108
Just because you are delusional doesn't mean the rest of us will accept your version of reality. GPL3 has done far more harm to open source than a any good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jra@samba.org View Post

As I have already pointed out in comments in the linked-to articles, there are many commercial companies shipping GPLv3 Samba, and despite dire warnings from a competitor (who was recently purchased to take the SMB code off the market for any other users)  the companies I listed are *still* shipping GPLv3 Samba. In fact there are now more OEM users than when Apple first announced they were removing Samba due to GPLv3.

Here's a good link on a talk I gave on why GPLv3 is a better license for commercial use than GPLv2:

ftp://samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf

My gut feeling about Apple and GPLv3 is on slide 20:

"GPLv3 prohibits locked down “app  store” models, where devices will only install signed binaries from a third party whom they must trust completely"

Which tells you more about where I think Apple are planning to go with later versions of MacOS X.
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEDIDIAH View Post


I don't think you are really thinking this through. What company wants to contribute to something that can then be used against them in the marketplace? If anything, it is the GPL that is a more appropriate license for "interesting contributors" because it puts EVERY ONE on an equal footing including you, me, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle or some garage startup you've never heard of.

If this was true it would be fantastic, however it is basically bull crap. GPL gives individual developers far to much control over your code and the way you can use it.
post #106 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post


The biggest changes to GPLv3 that make it anti-commercial are:

1. Patent Indemnification. If you use GPLv3 you give up the right to sue anyone for any patent which may cover or be substantially similar to anything you've ever GPLv3'ed.

2. DMCA. If you use GPLv3 you are forbidden from doing anything with that code or derivative works which would enforce copyrights.

3. Anti-TiVOization. Any GPLv3 software (or derivative works) must be modifiable and the modified version be usable like the original. No locking out modifications on your hardware.


These, combined with expanded definitions for that consitutes a "derivative work" push the GPLv3 far beyond the original "if you use this code you have to share your modifications" intent of the GPLv2. Almost no corporation will touch GPLv3 with a ten-foot pole, causing a GPLv2 fork or a commercial re-implementation of the few innovations from the GPL world.


The end result has been much less free software work and much more investment in proprietary software. Nice work, FSF.

Or you could say GPL has made other open licenses more acceptable. Your general point though that the FSF screwed up is correct though. Eventually as more and more developers get screwed over by the GPL it will fall be the wayside.
post #107 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Or you could say GPL has made other open licenses more acceptable. Your general point though that the FSF screwed up is correct though. Eventually as more and more developers get screwed over by the GPL it will fall be the wayside.

GPL hasn't done anything. Linux has made open source licenses more acceptable because Linus isn't a zealot. Hence GPL v2 and a finger to RMS. People like ESR courted corporate support of Open source and eventually got made into a FOSS pariah (his personality didn't help). GPL, FSF and RMS if anything has retarded OSS adoption.

If that stupid USL v BSDi lawsuit never happened we'd have had a vibrant BSD ecosystem instead of Linux and GPL would have been irrelevant a decade ago.
post #108 of 108
We know now that Apple totally intends to make SMB2 its strategy, so arguing over the relevance of an SMB implementation is a total waste of time. We also know from experience that, for some users (including me), the Apple implementation has been, er, less than ideal. I personally think that the loss of samba was unfortunate. We shall have to see what it all looks like going forward.

Licenses: you go with the one that makes sense. It was Apple's choice to drop samba. GPL3 is perfectly fine for commercial use, unless that use just happens to encroach on peoples' rights in the software. This does not mean Apple could not have used the software if it had wanted to, even as a kernel module. It could. It chose not to. I'm all for open standards, and there the BSD license reigns supreme because it guarantees widespread deployment of correct implementations, but this can only work when the specification exists for the standards (EG RFCs) that can be reasonably expected to describe the protocols; it is still up to implementers to interoperate based on available source code, however, so Samba's choice of GPLv3 makes complete sense if they intended a proprietary protocol to be completely described by its source. And, yes, I completely understand the GPL (2 and 3) and BSD licenses, and how and why they are applicable.

I'm still hopeful that Apple fixes its implementation so that it's less flaky and higher performing. Sadly, as far as I can tell, it never did release the sources. Samba now have working SMB2 support, and have worked around annoying bugs in Apple's implementation to my satisfaction, but if the way to transfer files between two Unix boxes is going to be a fscking Windows protocol, they'd better get this right. No reason they can't, just like ISO9660 and UDF ...

Cheers,

Sabahattin
Just myself, as usual.
Reply
Just myself, as usual.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server: Apple replaces Samba for Windows networking services