Ubuntu's New Desktop Installer Working On Auto-Install, Active Directory Integration

[mangeek]

AD is the center of mass because Microsoft made it so fucking easy to create, join and manage an entire forest with just a few mouse clicks.

Telling people to use Samba and OpenLDAP to achieve AD functionality in Linux is the peak of ignorance and contempt for a user's time.

I've worked with Windows Domains, AD, and Samba since the NT 4 days, and... you're right, but these day it is *super easy* to set up a Samba-based AD. My experience is that AD happened organically in a lot of orgs; they bought PCs and used peer-to-peer or print/storage appliances and shared accounts until they hit a breaking point and realized they needed to tie it all in and manage it. The desktop-end of things was what drove the back-office decisions, and Windows PCs were the only 'viable' business desktops you could get a full stack of supported business software for until quite recently.

Also, sure, you could build a directory system for other systems and probably develop plugins to use them in Windows (like... Netware did), but Microsoft still has a ton of control and I think they'd have made it hard to implement Group Policy-like features.

[NeoMorpheus]

It's kind of a shame that the open source world has never managed to come up with it's own answer to AD, which made everyone happy. I'll concede that it's a very, very hard problem to solve. Especially when it comes to meeting requirements like GDPR.

Talking about that, wheres Netware?

[Sonadow]

I've worked with Windows Domains, AD, and Samba since the NT 4 days, and... you're right, but these day it is *super easy* to set up a Samba-based AD. My experience is that AD happened organically in a lot of orgs; they bought PCs and used peer-to-peer or print/storage appliances and shared accounts until they hit a breaking point and realized they needed to tie it all in and manage it. The desktop-end of things was what drove the back-office decisions, and Windows PCs were the only 'viable' business desktops you could get a full stack of supported business software for until quite recently.

Also, sure, you could build a directory system for other systems and probably develop plugins to use them in Windows (like... Netware did), but Microsoft still has a ton of control and I think they'd have made it hard to implement Group Policy-like features.

Sure, this is "easy".

In another world perhaps.

I'll continue using Windows Server to get my AD forest up in minutes.

[NotMine999]

Ubuntu...

https://media.makeameme.org/created/no-no-god-5c40c9.png

[mangeek]

Sure, this is "easy".

In another world perhaps.

I'll continue using Windows Server to get my AD forest up in minutes.

I think the Samba process is pretty similar to the Windows Server process. Once you boil it down to just the actual steps you have to take, they're both "Configure DNS, then run the provisioning tool with the options you want". I've been provisioning Active Directory with PowerShell instead of the GUI ever since they allowed that (running the ADCs on Server Core is recommended), so my user experience between the two is quite similar.

[oiaohm]

I wasn't talking about the GPLv2 of the Linux Kernel, I was talking about the CDDL of ZFS. Both Oracle and SUN have claimed that they want to get ZFS to Linux but have both been quite silent on the license issues and also refused to re-license ZFS to avoid all problems. AFAIK Oracle owns all code of ZFS and should not have any issue with re-licensing except they won't.

That a mistake.

https://www.eweek.com/storage/netapp-oracle-settle-old-patent-litigation-over-zfs/

The settlement with netapp has to be taken into account. Oracle due to settlement with Netapp may not be able to re-license ZFS.

https://indico.cern.ch/event/656544/contributions/2675014/attachments/1524135/2382374/ZFSetc.pdf

Oracle stopped working on the open source version of ZFS as of 2010 as well you can guess that inline with the netapp settlement. Yes the Netapp Oracle settlement over ZFS is also under NDA.

Its really simple to forget the netapp legal action in the mix.

Clean room implementation of ZFS is one way out of this. Of course that will need the netapp patents expired not to get on the wrong side of them.

[cynic]

wait till you will see the 'save' icon

I'm old enough to know what it mean (actually, I'm way older than that!)

I read an interesting article a couple of week ago about skeumorphism and the many icons that will still use and that our kids haven't ever seen the original item.

The one that surprised me the most (because it is always under our eyes) is the telephone headset.

Unfortunately cannot find that article anymore

EDIT: found it! it was a thread on Twitter: https://twitter.com/culturaltutor/st...21223561187328

[jorgepl]

Stormcrow there has not been a GPL vs CDDL court fight and there does not need to be because precedence already exists. The problem here the court cases where parties have lost so mandating they release source code under GPL or LGPL apply is the precedence. CDDL terms says the source code must be under CDDL must be under CDDL and nothing else the binary can be any license. Then the GPL license says if you release a binary and it a derivative work you must release the source code as GPL.

The terms in CDDL and terms in GPL that are in conflict are the same type of term being you will release source code under X license and X license only. There was precedence for these terms being enforced before GPL even existed GPL did not invent the wheel here.

ZFS utils the userspace items is legal to be CDDL there is no dispute here. Closed source kernel modules mixing with the Linux kernel lot are depending on the fact the Linux kernel developers are not going to invest the time into a possible decade long legal fight due to them being big. There has been enforcement against smaller parties making closed source modules that don't have the resources to fight back by legal teams linked to Linux kernel. OpenZFS the Linux kernel developers have not taken interest in hunting down at this time.

The problem for OpenZFS is what will happen when OpenZFS is the only small party left that possible in breach of the Linux kernel GPLv2.0 module. Support of Ubuntu has been very important to keep the legal wolves of the Linux world at bay.

OpenZFS kernel module reason why it been left alone is yes there is really no question that GPL and CDDL mixing by copyright license terms is incompatible Copyright law does not end at that point. There is the fair usage arrangements. Copyright law allows making something from items where the license mix is incompatible if you can prove fair usage. ZFS with CDDL might be able to win this.

stormcrow every legal review of the GPL vs CDDL location comes to the same answer precedence(prior cases) exists for GPL and CDDL being incompatible licenses and this predates both GPL and CDDL existing and these precedence have been used in GPL and LGPL enforcement cases. Going into court and attempting to argue GPL and CDDL are compatible just will not fly. Even canonical legal department said this.

Canonical argument is that OpenZFS kernel module is not a "derivative work" so the licenses do not over lap so the interface function usage to the Linux kernel would fall under fair usage. So absolutely no argument that CDDL(OpenZFS) and GPLv2.0(Linux kernel) is compatible in fact total acceptance that they are not compatible.

There was another argument that there was no monetary harm there is a problem recent case a settlement was done in source code instead of money in USA court this presence is bad because this made source code it self a legally financial asset like like land and the law does not say monetary harm around copyright but financial harm.

OpenZFS legal position now is more unstable then when Canonical with Ubuntu decided to ship with ZFS. Yes the case ruling source code as financial asset could be part of the reason Canonical is attempting to sneak away from ZFS as this means the source code being the wrong license could the damage.

Stormcrow I will give you its not a slam dunk win yet with OpenZFS and the Linux kernel either way. The current position with presence is absolutely not favorable to OpenZFS linux kernel module its like 70/30 as in 70% chance OpenZFS would lose in court and 30% chance OpenZFS would win. Majority of copyright cases attacking party want 100% victory assured before going to court. Back when Canonical and debian decide to ship ZFS the number were 80-90% OpenZFS would most likely win vs 10-20% OpenZFS would lose. Big change in this item frame is back then the courts did not view source code as a financial asset. Source code not being financial asset being under the wrong license could not be damages under copyright law this made getting GPL/CDDL and other copyleft cases lot harder to get off ground.

That was a bunch of talking, but the truth is Linus Torvalds doesn't care about external propietary modules, even for small companies (look at iot, embedded). The world is built around these propietary modules. What he cares about is reusing Linux code into a propietary project.

However, it is true Linux makes it difficult (sometimes intentionally difficult) to maintain these propietary modules, same it's just easier (and much better for the overall quality of both the kernel and the module) to mainline it.

[IanW]

The steering wheel in that icon is a bit too 90s lol.

You'd prefer a yoke?

[finalzone]

Linus doesn't trust Oracle. Big woop. Linus is not a lawyer. He's not qualified to express an educated opinion on the legal enforceability of the licensing terms. Oracle v. Google? Java's pre-GPL license terms are very different than the license grant in OpenZFS. Each copyright case outcome is specific to the license terms the work is being released under. Nothing really stops Oracle from suing anyone regardless of the merits of the case. That's the major flaw in the US legal system. But then again, nothing really stops IBM from enforcing their massive patent portfolio except their continued good will towards the global developer community, and that's a far more dangerous existential threat than Oracle... yet few people point that out. IBM's got really good PR.

Linus did in fact ask Oracle's legal department, owner of ZFS, the okay of letting ZFS kernel module in kernel tree and treat it under GPL license without a single reply.

https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841

Let remind that Oracle had no problem relicensing other SUN's libraries like D-Trace under GPL except in this case ZFS.