#13
I'm curious why you think their DNS implementation does not adhere to the published standards. Considering Microsoft helped write the RFC's for DDNS that was introduced in Win2k I find that hard to believe.
DNS names are restricted to the characters A to Z, digits, and the hyphen(-). The first character of a DNS label can be either a letter or a digit according to RFC 1123. Microsoft's machine naming is based on Netbios names which supports a much wider character set including curly braces ({}), the underscore (_), and the exclamation mark (!) among others.
AND
And I would disagree. It is a crushing blow for Linux. Linux may still survive, but it means that the people promoting it are going to have to work harder, actually promote it based on the qualities of good software instead of enforced through legislation.
Once again, it wasn't being enforced through legislation in this case (it may have been in others, I don't know). Linux will not be crushed by this deal, no more than MS will be crushed by the Munich deal. To state otherwise really doesn't count as anything more than wishful thinking.
#14
At least one Senator in Massachussetts disagrees with you:
And the people who are at the heart of the "controversy" disagree with him.
Massachusetts will focus initially on open standards to increase interoperability of systems, upgrade legacy systems and cut costs before considering open-source software or systems, said Eric Kriss, Massachusetts' administration and finance secretary.
"We want to put more focus on thinking about where open-source products can fill some of our needs. That does not mean we are kicking out proprietary products," Kriss told Washington Technology.
Massachusetts wants to gradually begin using products whose standards are not proprietary to a company and are open to peer review, Kriss said. With this approach, standards such as HTTP , XML and SSL might form the basic underpinning of the state's infrastructure, he said.
"[Massachusetts] officials are really saying that they are going to be 'considering' open source and using it where they can," Gregg Kreizman, director of public-sector research for market research firm Gartner Inc. said. "This is prudent. They are not requiring the use of open source, which would be going overboard right now."
Kriss is trying to allay vendors' fears. Many large organizations, including federal and local governments, are thinking through the future evolution of their infrastructure and weighing the use of open source and standards, he said.
"We're not doing anything new. But we are trying to press forward in more of a top-down consolidation vision, making sure that these standards are in place rather than doing it in a random, decentralized pattern," he said. "And we're carefully evaluating open-source standards, rather than treating them like someone's stepchild they had forgotten."
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/18_15/security/22000-1.html
And from the article you linked to.
As for Secretary Kriss, he has complained that his comments have been misinterpreted causing a misunderstanding. Late last year(2003), he met with members of the Massachusetts Software Council to explain his IT policies. Members attending the meeting said Kriss allayed their fears on the issue. The Software Council has not taken a public stance on the issue.
This post was edited by happyguy on Sunday, January 18, 2004 at 12:13.
|