There's an interesting conversation going on over on the JavaSummit list on Yahoo! Groups, (which has spilled over to Sun tech evangelist Simon Phipp's weblog concerning Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's final judgement against Microsoft in its anti-trust trial.

The whole thing started when Noel Bergman noted that Microsoft has turned the loss into a winby turning interoperability with Windows into a poison pill. Microsoft can't claim all of CIFS or SMB as proprietary protocols, but it can add proprietary extensions to them–and charge a licensing fee for using those extensions, based on the final ruling.

Want to use Linux as a file server for Windows clients? Whoops–Microsoft ships a patch to its client-server protocols, and all of a sudden your file server dissapears. And only a commercial software package will fix the problem, since Microsoft has made the protocol proprietary in the process–and everybody has to cough up money to get access to it.

This is why I said in 1998 that the Justice Department was barking up the wrong tree–and that the server was where Microsoft had the greatest opportunity for anti-competitive behavior. The only way around this gambit, short of a new antitrust case, is to either take the war to the client( develop a freeware/shareware SMB driver that replaces/”enhances” the Microsoft client protocols on the client) or migrate to another network file sharing and directory stack.

My longest-serving workhorse, a Compaq Proliant 1600, died during Windows security patching last night. After installing one batch of Windows 2K updates, I rebooted it; it proved to be one reboot too many for the old server. Now it doesn't even make it to the power-on self test; the drives test OK at power-on, but no signal gets to the monitor or keyboard, so I figure the motherboard is toast.

For the most part, this is not a crisis. I had transferred most of what I work with on a daily basis over to the 120 gigabyte external Firewire drive plugged into my Apple G4 Cube a long time ago. The Compaq's usefulness as a software testing machine, given its horsepower, was limited.

But the Compaq was my last remaining wholly owned Windows server; I hardly ever shut it down other than to reboot after a bug patch (which, in recent months, has become almost a daily event). For a time, it was my household's primary digital asset store, with much of its RAID's 10 gigabyte storage capacity dedicated to digital photos and the shared family music library. And it hosted the household intranet.

So now I face a painful decision: do I take it down to the Little Shop of Hardware and attempt to have it resurrected? Or have its innards transferred to another machine? Or do I pay to have it put down? Or do I put it in the closet and wait for it to decompose?

Considering how decentralized my household IT architecture has become over the past two years, I'm not sure I want to do anything more than recover what little data I care about on the Compaq and consign its case to use as an artificial oyster reef or something (and, of course, the rest of its parts to some dignified and ecologically-correct rendering process). Once upon a time, I needed an in-house web, file, and print server; now it's all peer to peer file and print sharing, and everybody's got an e-mail address to send stuff to. It's less efficient storage-wise, sure–but all the client machines in the house have at least twice the storage capacity that the server had.

It makes me wonder if there's such a thing anymore as a workgroup server–outside, say, the media business. When software like