Going About It Arse Backwards
It isn't going to work, folks. All you're doing is giving Microsoft another revenue stream in the form of licensing MS "standards" and slapping the interoperability moniker on the idea.
I keep thinking about what would be better for the competition. We have Solaris, Linux, BSD, all the proprietary Unices and a few other disparate clones of clones hardly worth mentioning. One thing they all seem to have in common is that they support well documented open standards and they (mostly) work well with each other on a heterogenous network; NIS, NFS (RFC 1094), Kerberos, LDAP et al. Linux is, or was the last time I checked, annoyingly deviating from the NFS standard by rejecting anything larger than 8 byte NFS locking cookies, but I digress into one of my many pet hates of Mr. Torvalds' bid for world domination.
Better for the competition would be withdraw from this anti-trust saga completely. It was a mis-managed hodge-podge of litigation and typical US court double-speak. Just mandate open standards for interoperability for all government applications and sit back to watch the fallout. Microsoft will either fall into line or become irrelevant. That's how one forces interoperability, not handing them "reasonable and equitable" revenue on a plate making their farcical attempts at ramming proprietary standards such as CIFS (OK, I know, but still...) and AD down everyone's throat seem legitimate. That is, of course, assuming the .gov admins can do more that sit and stab at dcpromo's point-and-drool interface. Perhaps this is the argument's Achilles heel?
Oh, and let's have some sort of browser service for NFS, please. This is 2008 and not everyone wants their remote shares in fstab, or even wishes to know fstab exists, although it does vastly simplify security and administration from the BOfH's point of view. Avahi/mDNS FTW?