To some degree, this is where the vendors like ClearOS and SMB Server come in. They attempt to wrap up the AD (Samba) functionality in a neat package with easy to use "wizards" and whatnot to make something that a reasonably good (ie., non-guru) admin can set up. This is one of the things I'm trying to research now.

Arrrgh!! I just realized that I hadn't logged in, so I'm posting this again under my /. name, not as Anonymous Coward...

Actually, this is a question I just got from some of my IT friends: A lot of smaller shops are (perhaps justifiably) hesitant to custom build a Samba4 based AD server, but they would be happy to run a nicely boxed solution like ClearOS or FreeNAS or some of the other "enterprise storage servers" like you mention.

My question is, has anyone gathered a list of what Linux savvy solution providers are planning to move to Samba4?

Back in July, I made a partial list for a presentation I was doing on Samba4 at a technical conference. I don't know if this list is still accurate, or if more vendors have been added, but it's a starting point:

- Restara Server (AD replacement – recent Samba beta)
- ClearOS 6.x
- The ZEG (Zero Effort Groupware) edition of SOGo
- SerNet Samba 4 Appliance
- OpenChange (Open Source Exchange replacement)
- Zentyal 3.0 Beta

Interesting point. Even if these stats are specifically for IE, I wonder how MS is collecting them. I'm pretty sure MS is not counting downloads through other browsers such as Firefox, since they don't comply with MS's Most Excellent Security Protocols (ie., asking Brother Bill for permission before downloading anything) for blocking malicious software.

Big Bloody Surprise THAT is!! Freaking Windows warns you about EVERYTHING. "If you do XYZ, your machine may be at risk." You can hardly turn around without Windows warning that it'll put your computer at risk. Tell that four or five hundred times to the average user, and then profess surprise when they start to ignore the warning????

Here's another angle that's hard to quantify: What happens if you decide to publish another book? The fact that you've distributed all those free copies along side of the pay-for editions means you've got a *LOT* of people who know your name. This fact alone should give your next book a big head-start if you ever decide to publish again, either through a "vanity press" or through a more conventional channel.

You also need to filter the kind of knowledge you are saving. You don't need in depth scientific journals with a lot of highly specific knowledge, but you might need some trivia on the 14th US president's wife's cooking habits...

Also, the greater the amount of data, the longer it's going to take to look through it. You can only do so much with key words and indexes. This is not only a contest of how accurate you are, but of how fast you can retrieve the information, sometimes even before the entire question has been asked (or in this case, guessing the question before you know the entire answer....)

In many ways, this challenge is vastly more complex than chess. The game of chess is incredibly difficult, but it is pretty well understood, and has a very restricted number of rules. Natural language processing is another problem altogether. The computer has a much faster access to facts, but processing the "answer" in order to create a question in the right context is going to be huge. Personally, I wouldn't place any bets either way as to which side I think will win in this one.

I actually think the car analogy is a poor one. That would imply that car manufacturers, or even the dealers, KNEW about bad drivers, and had a way of disabling their automobiles.

ISP's can tell with a fair degree of certainty that a computer they have connected to the network is spewing either spam, or participating in a known 'botnet. They also have a way to contact the user to tell them that something is happening. Also, having an infected computer isn't usually something the user chooses, and they often have no idea of what is going on. That's not to say that we should be making laws that force ISP's to act regardless of the circumstances. That's more like telling someone they can only use a baseball bat to fix a pair of eyeglasses.

On the other hand, this is COMPLETELY different from "bad people" who are doing things like file sharing or downloading stuff, or even using more than their share of Internet bandwidth. Writing laws to force ISPs to become the puppets of the big media monopolies is BAD, BAD, BAD.

Granted, this is a local public radio station in upstate NY, but you can stream it anywhere. WXXI is one of the vanishing breed of predominantly Classical radio stations here in the US. They have some jazz programs, and a little bit of news (and you have to put up with the occasional Public Radio fundraisers), but it is probably 90% high quality classical music programming: http://streaming.wxxi.org/fm-hi

(The station has been around for something like 40 years, so it's the station I grew up on!)

Since the total cost of settling a patent suit is often proportional to the length of time it takes to settle, then yes, getting the stupid thing over as fast as possible is often the best approach. Even putting it through a lopsided court is going to eliminate the most obvious offenders, so at least you still have a reasonable chance of winning, without wasting a lot of time and money if you do lose.

Unfortunately, this little factoid will be quoted by marketing droids and microsofties for years to come... :-(

Hummm..... Another option to get around the patent would be to use ODF. THAT would be easy, and free to boot!

The problem seems to be though that the courts and the USPTO are stuck in a game of passing the buck.

The USPTO says, "We don't have the resources of domain knowledge to figure out if all patents are valid, so we'll just approve anything that looks reasonable, and then let the courts haggle it out."

For the most part (unless the lawyers specifically steer the case in a different direction), the Courts say, "Well, we're experts in the LAW, not in patents, so if the USPTO granted the patent, then we'll just assume they are valid, and then determine if the person or company infringed them."

They certainly don't care, or don't think they are responsible for determining who is a "Troll" and who is legitimate. So, we're stuck with a system that's easy for people to get in to, but hard to throw the abusers out of....

Good point, especially since it is claimed that even servers which are not configured to accept dynamic updates are still vulnerable.

It's unlikely that, if you're running a DNS server inside of your private network, someone on the outside is going to be able to hit it. But then, like all other vulnerabilities, you combine this one with a couple of other attacks (such as a non-privileged login), and all of the sudden you've got something really dangerous. :-(