It's Not ALL About Linux
|
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. Wait! Before you burn me in effigy atop a pyre of flaming "Linux for Dummies" books, hear me out. I am discounting neither the value of Linux, nor the huge impact it has had on Microsoft and its customers. Microsoft watches Linux like a hawk and has folks on the Windows Server team who are dedicated to following every open-source twist and turn. And I, for one, am ecstatic that Redmond has some real competition, thanks to Linux and its backers. But Microsoft knows there is a whole community of folks out there who are married to the Microsoft mob. For better or for worse. Whether Microsoft makes them richer or poorer. Until bankruptcy do they part. In many markets where Microsoft competes, Linux and open source don't factor into the equation. Linux doesn't show up on Microsoft's desktop OS radar. It doesn't figure when it comes to the market for desktop office suites. Dev tools? Gaming? Open source is just a blip.
Nonetheless, it's become chic to use Linux as the yardstick for every move Microsoft makes. But to do so is to gloss over Microsoft's real motivations. Here are three examples of what I'm talking about: Sorry, Sun. Not in your wildest dreams. Microsoft decided to add a measly two years of "extended" (read "paid") support for Windows 98 and ME because its users weren't ready to upgrade yet.
I know some industry watchers are claiming that Microsoft extended Windows 98 and Windows ME's life support because of THE LINUX THREAT. But I don't buy it. It doesn't make sense. These users are adverse to change. They are sticking with what works. They aren't ready to jump to a whole new platform, where their apps may no longer run at all. I disagree. Microsoft did not make Services for Unix (SFU) free because of Linux. I believe Microsoft decided to make SFU free because the company is preparing to integrate it right into the operating system in the not-so-distant future. Redmond makes a lot of Windows Server add-ons free. Plus, even though SFU includes many Unix utilities, it is not designed to supplant Linux or Unix.
A very sexy theory, but there's one problem. It's not true. Microsoft admits it has found a lot of open-source ideas worth emulation. But development by group consensus inside of Microsoft is not one of them.
Microsoft reorgs regularly. Microsoft needed to improve the coordination between its Windows client and server divisions, now that they are both developing on top of the same core NT kernel. Windows is cool again, thanks to all the excitement around Longhorn. It's time for a changing of the guard. Period. End of story. What's your take? Is too much credit being given to Linux, when it comes to explaining Microsoft's strategies? Or do you believe every Microsoft hiccup is directly traceable to open source? Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and |
