You do realize that many enterprise storage servers made by companies like IBM, Symantec, EMC, Dell etc. are or have been based on Samba code, right ?

Nah, probably not... :-). After all, you know that only Windows storage servers work with Windows clients don't you :-).

Jeremy

/. is not what it was, but then again it never was :-).

I miss the .bruce.perens/bruce.perens/bruce.perens./ wars.. and the "information wants to be wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide" guy :-). And who could forget sig11's "will the real Bruce Perens please stand up" ?

But Tim Potter (old Samba Team member) and I loved the trolls :-).

Jeremy.

Yes, I'm Jeremy Allison - the original poster. I created Samba along with tridge (he was there first, and is much smarter than me though :-). I thought that was obvious, sorry :-).

Jeremy.

There isn't a court-ordered requirement for them to test it. There's a market enforced requirement :-).

Go into Frys (or local Geek store). Look at all the NAS boxes on the shelf. That's all Samba. Every one.

Now imagine you're Microsoft. A new version of Windows comes out and it doesn't work against all the "home NAS media servers" people have. Ooops :-(.

They test against Samba *all the time*, as it's good for their business to do so.

They also go a little above and beyond by helping test the AD server part of Samba (which isn't in wide production use yet) - they do that in their interop labs up in Redmond.

They provide free food for the engineers working late up there. It's not as good as the free Google food (but then again, hey - what is ? :-) :-).

Jeremy.

Oh you mean corporations like IBM, EMC, Netgear, WDC,Google ? Yeah, the GPLv3 really scared them :-).

Listen to my presentation here:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2011/may/10/why-samba-switched-to-GPLv3/

to explain why GPLv3 is a *better* license for commercial use the GPLv2.

Jeremy.

Possibly their marketing and senior exec's hate it (although I doubt that - Thomas Pfenning is at director level in the Windows org and he think's it's pretty cool.

But I know their engineers think it's cool :-).

Jeremy.

In the words of Francis Urquart:

"You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.." :-).

It's just an AD server. Why would running under Virtualization environments, Hyper-V, Multiple AD servers, matter ?

Jeremy.

Yes :-). That's why you can use the Windows tools to administer Samba4.0 AD server :-).

Jeremy.

Ahem. Microsoft provided a positive quote for the press release, and were involved in bug fixing to ensure interoperability.

So no, I don't think they hate it :-).

Jeremy.

Fortunately there are specific laws saying that your money is still yours when you store it in a bank. But apparently the DOJ thinks that the same principle doesn't apply to data unless there's a law specifically saying so.

I'm not familiar with phone technology, but codecs (which came up in the Moto-MS case) are indeed licensed as a fixed fee per unit. AFAIK this is considered FRAND.

Moto's patents may be legit, but they're asking a very high price for them. If 50 companies each ask for 2.25% royalties, it doesn't leave much...

TI has no modern fabs; they decided to get out of the fab business a few years ago.