Is Linux Keeping the Softies Awake at Night?
|
In a recent column, I wondered aloud if too much credit is being given to Linux in explaining Microsoft's strategies. Read the "It's Not ALL About Linux" Column for a Refresher As I noted, there's no denying that Microsoft is worried about Linux, and justifiably so. But, contrary to prevailing "wisdom," this fear is not dictating Microsoft's every move, in my humble opinion. The extent to which open source is impacting Microsoft's corporate psyche became even more of a hot button during the past week or so. Microsoft's NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 source code was leaked to the Web, or as some portrayed it, "open sourced" against Microsoft's will. Some industry observers suggested Microsoft just bite the bullet and open source the code for real. See "Advice to Microsoft: Open Source the Leaked Code" But is Linux/open source Microsoft's primary motivator? My inbox was inundated with readers seeking to weigh in on the subject. While I was expecting to be bombarded by members of the self-appointed open-source hit squad, I received relatively few profane poison-pen letters. Instead, folks who agreed — and disagreed — with my premise made some well-reasoned points.
Reason number 1: COST. Local governments (Cities) have taken MS to courts and have won on issues concerning their licensing scheme and high prices. Cost cutting is like always is a major concern. Reason number 2: Stability: Linux has proved to be a stabile and very useable platform. The German government has financed a project for the development and implementation of a Linux platform that can be used at all levels of government and the private sector. This project, when completed, will be released to the public for free use. These two reasons alone are enough to scare MS to take drastic measures as they are losing EXTREMELY large customers, namely the German National Government and many large cities. Another strange move we are noticing are large requests from our customers for Apple Mac OS X Servers. This is an emerging product that has up until recently, not to be considered ready for the enterprise market. These are lost cost high performance servers with unlimited licenses for clients and Open Source software can be easily used with OS X because of its UNIX (Free BSD) underpinnings. To keep it short, MS has plenty to worry about when it comes to Linux and Open Source. This is what happens when you try to keep the whole pie for yourself. Linux and Open Source share it with the others. Jon Allen Observers are over-focused on the server side of the business without understanding the impact on the non-MS desktops, that is, the mission critical applications built with the MS IDEs (integrated development environments). Each one of these markets has a different market cycle. For example, the market cycle in public safety is about ten to twelve years from a bid opportunity to the next bid opportunity. Losing support for a vital Microsoft component forces upgrades that may or may not be timely for the middle tier. I'm glad for Linux because competition improves the quality of Microsoft products and support. But there are certainly other dollars and sense reasons. Len Bullard ("Readers Weigh In On the Linux Threat" Letters, Page 2)
Yes, Linux has affected Microsoft decisions by providing an alternative, Thomas Wolfgang Burger
People for years have had the need to belong…. Windows vs. Unix is just another of these long list of communities that people have separated into. Sometimes the Unix or Linux zealous take shots at Microsoft and write about their issues or opinions with no foundation of truth in their writings. Sometimes the Microsoft zealous do the same. The bottom line is that most of the time these community have friendly fights, which is good for the health of a economy or a nation, but sometimes it detracts from the real issues.
Linux has indeed pushed Microsoft to better its software offering but the Linux community must be very careful of the waking the sleeping Giant too fast. Microsoft has had a long history of destroying companies and entire industries when it put its war machine behind the effort. Larry Ellison said it best "Bill Gates is a very dangerous man not because he is a genius and a great innovatory but because he is able to look at a situation, examine the issues, and then make a move, the correct move almost every time". Sometimes it is best to fight silently so that the opponent is not aware of your every move until it is too late. Charles Reid Yes it's not all about Linux, but if open source developers don't take Microsoft seriously, it is likely to become all about Microsoft. I have often wondered why IBM didn't make Linux usable for people who are not interested in becoming sys admins and developers. My guess is that it would cut into there consulting business if their client had easy to use computers. Their business seems to be built around servers that require expensive developers and administrators. In the long run the OS is unimportant. We are moving towards universal development tools, which will create platform independent code. Most of us should concentrate on Java, .NET or both, and not waste our time on the Linux vs. Windows controversy. If you have been reading what Tim O'Reilly has been saying for years he often talks about the internet as the platform. From this point of view Windows & Linux are just different ways of accessing the underlying OS. Java & .NET are just different ways for accessing the global platform which is built using TCP/IP, HTTP, XML, SOAP, etc.
("Readers Weigh In On the Linux Threat" Letters, Page 3) Linux did not force MS to make either of the three decisions, but I do believe Linux was a factor albeit less of a factor than has been suggested. 1) The Win98 extension. As you said, a lot of their customers weren't ready to move yet and all that would have been achieved is a lot of mad customers and a lot of hacked boxes. This would have made MS look bad the next time a worm popped up and they had to say "We don't provide security updates for Win98". 2) Making SFU free. Ok, this is a Linux move. I think you are correct; they are going to integrate into the next version of Windows. Why? Because Unix is popular again thanks to Linux and they can't ignore it any longer. Do you think SFU would even exist if not for Linux? Maybe as a very expensive product, but not as a core part of the OS. Again thought, they didn't make it free because they felt that HAD to, but Linux is the reason that making SFU part of the OS 3) Separate the OS from the Apps. The only reason I have for believing this was somewhat Linux motivated was a quote from Ballmer I read about 3 years ago where he said this when pressed to give one aspect of Linux he thought was good. He said it was cleanly separated. Each piece doesn't depend on the other so you can rearrange one piece without breaking all the other pieces, thus making it very flexible and stable. (Sorry, don't know where it was from and that is highly Again though on the whole, spot on. Linux is a factor, but not pushing MS around yet. (Reader Name Withheld Upon Request) As you say, it's chic to talk penguin, but in the end the Orca (MS) The (reason) anyone is using SFU is because the have unix boxes AND MS — not the other way around. MS is just making (things) easy for the unix admins who have to use MS also. Sun can say all they want but MS backed off because the demand is still there for 98, and (this) shows that MS listens to their customers.. Maybe Sun should listen to the RAQ users rather than abandon them. Do people really this MS is NOT noticing Mac success? How long will it be before MS comes out with … Linux kernel with MS stuff to run Office, etc .. MS survives on open source failure. It's as simple as that. When someone can produce a version of Linux that loads easily , doesn't mutilate fonts, and has no grey (grin) and has the common tools that folks use (like simple language query and grep)and can use MS based apps, then and only then will MS worry. The only fear an Orca has is of another Orca. The more penguins, the more food. Ozzie Sutcliffe
Afterall, the old and true saying— "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you"— could very appropriately apply to the "Gnu/Linux Community's" concerns, about Microsoft in this case. W. Anderson ("Readers Weigh In On the Linux Threat" Letters, Page 4)
You make a good point. Linux is not really killing Microsoft on the desktop yet, particularly the home use desktop. But it is nailing them on the server, and increasingly, on government computers across the planet. I think a lot of the perception that Microsoft is focused on Linux is from two causes: (1) Microsoft itself, who rated Linux as its #1 upcoming risk, and (2) the widely held belief, at least in the tech community, that Microsoft is behind SCO's attack on Linux. I am a Microsoft user, I program on that platform, but I have dabbled with Linux. I am a Windows98SE user. I do not need any support from Microsoft other than patches to fix any other vulnerabilities they find after 6 years. ME was a disaster, and there are a number of people I helped to replace ME on the new system they bought with Windows98SE. Windows NT, 2000, 2003 are OK. Windows2000 in particular is a nice stable OS but again, Microsoft has been adding Spyware to it as time goes on. I will never "upgrade" to XP, and from the sounds of it, Longhorn because of points (3) and (1). Which means if Microsoft does not change tact shortly, I will be forced to look at the alternatives. Oh wait, there only is one. Linux.
(The) only reason why everyone is "worried" is because IBM and Sun are doing a drumroll about Linux. We will see if history repeats itself. Remember not too long ago, IBM was top dog and didn't bother with Microsoft. What is different now is Microsoft is taking Linux serious and glad to see they are changing their corporate mentality now, like the Windows98 extension. But from watching those IBM ads with this kid sitting in a chair doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies about Linux. I don't want some kid working on my server, who doesn't even speak in the commercial. Don't know who their marketing person is, but they definitely need to retake Marketing 101 if they want to promote Linux as a serious program. Until Linux gets a "unified" front," they will be seen like the keystone cops tripping over each other and never really passing off as a serious option. There are almost more versions of Linux out there than Windows. Microsoft's game plan should be to keep Linux scattered and FUD in the forefront.
("Readers Weigh In On the Linux Threat" Letters, Page 6)
To the eyes of serious industry analysts, Microsoft has for the most part given up the enterprise server market to Linux and frankly speaking, Microsoft knows its money will be made in the consumer device and SOHO industry. Nicholas Donovan— President/CTO I agree with you, albeit for different reasons. Firstly, let me say, I live in the heart of MS country. Their exceedingly wealthy upper management microculture has plastered its financial despotism throughout this county with mansions costing literally millions of dollars, while homeless people freeze in West Seattle. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, MS does is for money. All their artsy-craftsy sayings, warm and fuzzy promises, and empty guarantees are aimed directly at increasing the size of their bank account. The reason they do what they do, the — real — reason, is money. The reason free software, and open source software exist is for philosophical reasons that do not include money as the top priority. The "open source" development model and the free software development model (often confused; similar, but not the same) are working at least twice as efficiently as the best evelopment method yet conceived. In slightly over 10 years, GNU Linux has, at the very least, equaled the performance of any MS product that took ms 20-plus years to develop with their archaic hierarchal society.
To the corporate management pundits at MS, this translates into money and nothing else. This is why they are watching GNU Linux "like a hawk", as you say, because its development model has the potential to help them fix what they can't figure out on their own: how to make even more money. The Voice of The Forest |
