|
I find myself in disagreement with Mr. Tom Adelstein's article titled
"Microsoft Has Stopped Competing with Linux". This is an uncomfortable
position for me as I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Adelstein's
work and writings. It may be that I am simply not part of his intended
audience, as I have no experience dealing with large businesses or
Venture Capitalists or ISVs. I'm just a semi-retired father with
some Linux computers.
Nevertheless, the article appeared to me to strike the wrong tone for a
general audience and my disagreements with the article are presented below.
Mr. Adelstein's remarks are
emphasized and indented.
The original is at LXer.com, without my interrupting remarks.
Anyone unfamiliar with the head-to-head discussions among Linux advocates
may think we're not on the same team. That would be a mistaken impression.
Microsoft has ceased its obsession with Linux. Someone finally convinced
the boss that Linux poses little threat to Redmond. Someone came out of
the Linux lab and said that It's about time that they starting focusing
on their real threat: IBM.
Microsoft's real threat is still
the GPL
and more specifically,
GNU/Linux. Their current tactic may be to attempt to dissuade the
public from thinking about GNU/Linux, or talking about GNU/Linux, but
that does not change the threat from GNU/Linux, as stated in Microsoft's
SEC Form 10-K. GNU/Linux was
a threat to Microsoft before
IBM jumped aboard. This is not belittling
IBM's contributions, IBM has and
continues to contribute a great deal, it is simply an historical
fact that GNU/Linux threatened
Microsoft's marketing intentions before
IBM satisfied itself that GNU/Linux is viable for the long-term.
Several recent articles indicate that Microsoft has finally absorbed the
GNU/Linux and so-called Open Source threat. Budgeting $500 million for
marketing its next iterations of Windows and Office shows that they have
little concern about the adoption of their new platforms.
I fail to see how such a massive advertising expenditure by an entity
said to hold well over 90% of the market is an indication that they
have "finally absorbed the GNU/Linux and so-called Open Source threat."
As a monopoly, if they had "absorbed" the threat, surely a much lesser
sum would be needed to convince existing customers to upgrade.
My guess is that Microsoft perceives a real and present threat to one of
their cash cows -- MS Windows. They launched an ad campaign last year
estimated at $200 million for the aging XP. This occurred the same
month Apple released a new version of OS X. Rather than showing that
Microsoft has "little concern", it appears to me they have a whopping
$500 million concern.
Unlike the UNIX threat in the early to late 1990's, Linux represents
what Microsoft now sees as a "me too" platform with little innovation.
The worries about costs in the executive suites in the industrialized
countries have now given way to implementing solutions.
Microsoft has only recently overtaken UNIX sales in servers. They never
met "the UNIX threat". UNIX sales reduced due to the increased
viability of GNU/Linux in much of the space where UNIX reigned supreme
and the growth of 64-bit processors in relatively cheap computers.
GNU/Linux is not yet a suitable replacement for all of the old UNIX
systems, but it is far more suitable for far more previously UNIX
systems-only situations than anything Microsoft has yet produced.
The same
IDC report that notes revenue for MS Windows servers
"modestly exceeded spending for Unix servers" also noted that revenue
spending for servers was up 4.4% while unit shipments were up 11.6%. It
doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that cheaper servers are
now sufficient to do what required heavy iron in the past. It also
doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that comparing MS Windows Server
2003 with just 5 client licenses at $999 will show up heavily weighted
in that report versus downloadable Linux allowing as many clients as
your connection and hardware can stand. I wonder if Google or Intel or
IBM or
others really need to buy servers with Linux pre-installed.
Measuring platform usage by sales figures for servers with
pre-installed operating systems was only valid when all such systems
required a payment for the operating system. As Linux has displaced
both UNIX and MS Windows servers, it increasingly invalidates measuring
server usage by revenue generated by sales of servers with pre-installed
operating systems. With the use of thousands of instances of Linux on
a mainframe instead of "farms" of servers, such revenue reports are
reduced to a tidbit of financial information to gauge what is making money
for vendors rather than a reflection of usage by customers.
GNU/Linux is not a "me too" system except in the fact that its
developers will imitate that which they see is useful and discard that
which they deem wrong. The process by which Microsoft develops software
and treats the source as if it is something magic which only selected
wizards may view, was discarded by free software developers as an
unscientific way to generate improvements to software. The process
selected by free software developers is an adaptation of that which
created UNIX, which is one of collaboration. This is not to say that
there are no
poor imitations in open source. It's just not the focus of GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux allows a graphical user interface because it makes sense.
This is not an imitation of Microsoft Windows, which was not the first
to use a graphical user interface. GNU/Linux will also function in a
great variety of systems without any graphical user interface
components at all. Microsoft attempted to remove all vestiges of a
command line interface from MS Windows, only to have to restore a
limited such interface in response to demands from customers who saw
its potential in GNU/Linux and other Unix-like systems.
GNU/Linux, in its quest to be a free as in speech replacement for UNIX,
has long had the ability to act as a terminal server, servicing thin
clients connected to it and thereby distributing its computing power to
those clients. Microsoft Windows added such capabilities, in limited
fashion, in response to the pre-existing capabilities in UNIX and
Unix-like systems.
"[M]e too" has marked
Microsoft's tactics from its beginnings.
Microsoft began with a port of
public domain BASIC to the Altair
computer.
MSDOS was a reworked, purchased system called QDOS, which in
turn was created from
Gary Kildall's CP/M. MS Windows was a combination
of the
Mac interface and, later, work done in
partnership with IBM on OS/2.
Sun represented the major problem for Microsoft during the build out of
the Internet. Today, Sun has evolved into a shadow of its former self.
With Sun no longer a threat, Microsoft has started a push toward
Enterprise Resource Solutions while leveraging its monopoly on the
desktop.
In a recent article by Martin Lamonica, he observers:
The company has for years marketed its products to the tech elite
within big companies. Now Microsoft is making concerted effort to
speak the language of top executives.
Why? Because business managers, marketing executives and other
non-techies are increasingly involved in technology purchasing
decisions, Microsoft argues. Another reason for the shift is IBM.
Microsoft's chief rival in the business software area has been
pitching to CEOs for years, relying on its business-savvy
consultants to help win deals. In essence, Microsoft needs to speak
Big Blue's language.
Martin didn't make this up. He got the information for the basis of his
article from Steve Ballmer. At a press conference on March 16th in New
York, Ballmer spoke to 500 corporate executives about an overarching
plan for business computing.
I have a hard time believing that Microsoft has ever "marketed its
products to the tech elite". The main route GNU/Linux and the BSDs have
had into companies has been through the back (server) rooms via the
"tech elite". Microsoft has used the tactic of selling to CEOs in order
to get them using the latest,
backwards-incompatible release of MS
software in order to pressure all those downstream from the CEO to have
to "upgrade" as well. Steve Ballmer saying that there is a shift does
not prove that there is a shift.
Microsoft doesn't mind lying.
Ballmer has changed his emphasis from developers to business and people
with an emphasis on end-user productivity. Ballmer told LaMonica:
We're not anticonsulting (referring to IBM). I just came off the
board of Accenture recently. I've been on the board four or five
years. This is not about being against consulting. This is about
being for empowering people, so they can they can empower their
company.
That's a completely different tune for Microsoft. Knowing they have
already won the platform wars, Microsoft has started competing for the
ERP market space with its Microsoft Dynamics line of integrated business
solutions aimed at financial, customer relationship, and supply chain
management.
That's not a completely different tune. It's the same old tune played
on a different fiddle. If you can stand it, and it doesn't get
"revised" in the meantime, check out one of Bill Gates' speeches from
July 8, 1998, "This vision is really about empowering workers, giving
them all the information...". I refuse to link to that thing.
As for Microsoft competing for the ERP market space, their
10-Q shows
revenue of $423 million from "Business Solutions" (ERP, CRM, MSPP, and
SMS&P) for the 6 months ended Dec. 31, 2005. For the same period,
"Information Worker" (Office, Project, Visio, LiveMeeting, OneNote, and
SharePoint Portal Server CALs) produced $5,677 million and "Server and
Tools" (CALS for Windows Server, Microsoft SQL Server, Exchange Server,
and other server productsand also includes developer tools, training,
certification, Microsoft Press, Premier and Professional product support
services, and Microsoft Consulting Services) produced $5,438 in revenue.
"Client" (Windows) produced revenue of $6,646.
So ERP produced 7.4%, 7.7%, and 6.3% as much revenue as Office, servers
or Windows, respectively. Not exactly their cash cow, but I suppose it
might be considered a threat of more drain on individuals and businesses
if they start pumping money into ERP. It still appears to me that the
biggest unnecessary drains on economies are Office, servers and MS
Windows. We all pay for these things, then we pay again for the troubles
they cause, then we pay again because goods and services have the
ongoing costs of these things added into their prices.
Microsoft says that their business is about people--helping staff
across an organization be more productive, make better decisions, and
pursue business goals with confidence. Good reasons to cease its Open
Source rhetoric
This is what they've claimed to be about for years.
Unfortunately, the
combination of inadequately tested code, childish security, the
obsession with ever more features that people do not want, and the need
to continuously change things just for the sake of marketing the latest
version of software,
have all been anti-productive. These things lead
to
real costs in downtime, hardware replacement, licensing costs and
retraining costs.
Linux advocates have focused on getting the desktop on par with Windows.
That's a "me too" strategy. In a perfect world free software should win
the hearts and minds of computer users. Unfortunately, secular minded
consumers do not understand that technologists need collaboration to
evolve. That costs money and Linux doesn't have it.
Linux advocates have focused on a free system. Some developers, such as
Linus Torvalds, want the best system kernel in the world. Some
developers, such as the KDE group, want a versatile graphical desktop
that is not jarringly different from the ubiquitous MS Windows desktop.
It is not the same as MS Windows, nor is it limited to imitation. It,
like GNOME, can be altered in ways and to a degree that you are simply
not allowed to do for MS Windows. Some developers, such as those who
work on the various window managers for the X Windows system, choose to
create highly customizable desktops that do not necessarily include a
"desktop environment". You are free to iconify everything or nothing.
Some developers, such as those involved with ImageMagick, choose to
provide command line interface tools for editing and manipulating
graphical images. I know of nothing in MS Windows to match the
versatility and power of such tools.
The money spent by VC's on open source companies won't help Linux. It
also won't make openoffice.org a superior productivity suite or Firefox
the preferred browser. Linux plays in a niche market when it comes to
the desktop.
I really do not understand these assertions. If Venture Capitalists are
investing in true open source companies, there is at least the
possibility that some of those companies will either develop code or
provide feedback to Linux kernel developers which will improve Linux.
Likewise for OpenOffice.org. Firefox seems to be doing quite well on
its own.
Mr. Adelstein has a great deal more experience in dealing with large
businesses and VCs than I, so perhaps he is presenting some message
they will surely understand. Perhaps this is a warning to VCs that
there are places within open source where their investments are more likely to pay off than funding large, already successful projects,
but I don't want to put words in his mouth.
Microsoft doesn't have to worry about Linux catching up like they did
when NT 4.0 dominated the corporate landscape. Instead, they have
created partnerships with Sugar CRM, JBoss, Apache and other open source
stalwarts.
Microsoft has to worry about holding people back with Microsoft
products as more and more figure out that GNU/Linux has been leading in
almost every area of computing for a long time. Linux works on
everything from watches to mainframes. GNU/Linux has been capable of
easily providing for almost all users' needs for quite a few years, in
spite of many obstacles that result from the goliath's monopoly.
GNU/Linux came from nowhere, halted the infiltration of MS into server
rooms, and has since been pushing MS out. As more people discover how
much easier to use, maintain and adapt that GNU/Linux is versus MS,
GNU/Linux attracts more users and developers. It's been simple enough
for
kindergartners and
Grandmas
for years. It's probably even simple enough for CEOs now.
What's Next for Linux then?
Bob Dylan once sang "wasted words proves to warn that he not busy being
born Is busy dying." Written in 1965, those lyrics proved prophetic.
Without innovation, Linux remains and will remain a "me too" technology
effort outside the server domain.
The numbers do not back up these implications of doom. The
desperate antics of Microsoft do not back up these implications. The
migrations to GNU/Linux
and the new uses
businesses make
of Linux do not support these implications.
Because most of the desktop applications that people regularly depend upon
are mature, these needs are met with existing offerings for GNU/Linux.
The only thing holding most people back from using GNU/Linux is inertia.
There are a lot of people who want only those applications with which they
are familiar, right down to the name.
[OSDL Desktop
Linux Survey (PDF)]
One problem is that while many millions currently use Linux every day,
many more millions could but won't because of so many vocal advisors telling
them that, for example, Photoshop doesn't run on Linux. Never mind that
a great many people either do not use Photoshop or could better handle their
image editing needs with software that does run on Linux. The great mass of
people for which Linux is far better suited than MS Windows have little
understanding of why it is better suited; they must accept the
advice of those they believe are more knowledgeable about computers, on faith.
Nearly every GNU/Linux advocate has a collection of sad war stories about
aiding some poor, frustrated MS Windows user out of the tar-pit of spam,
spyware, viruses, data-eating crashes, or just plain fumbling mouse clicks.
MS Windows will not protect itself from these computer user's mistakes.
Linux will. It is heart-breaking to watch people suffer from the consequences
of Microsoft's callous, greedy, cold-hearted drive for maintaining barriers
to competition instead of concentrating on code quality.
It is equally heart-breaking to see continuous pronouncements of why these
suffering persons should continue to suffer instead of making a small,
relieving jump to Linux. Let the slow, chicken-hearted corporations and the
MS Windows elite "power-users" continue their ceaseless battle with the
naive insecurity of MS intertwined products, but let them stop
telling the masses, over and over, year after year, that Linux is not
quite ready. By the criteria they set, which is porting of the proven
low-quality MS software to Linux, it never will be ready.
Sun Microsystems proved that a significant business existed in
delivering workstations to enterprises. They differentiated themselves
by making proprietary hardware platforms that could do what Microsoft
and IBM could not.
Linux has shown it can dominate markets for devices. It can dominate
where UNIX once ruled. It has a cost benefit and a technology benefit
for people who do not want to use Microsoft's limited development tools.
That's something Microsoft developers will never understand.
Apple has shown that it has a significant market for consumer devices
and entertainment. Even with its new relationship with Intel, it has
managed to maintain a distance from the Wintel business model.
One solution for Linux builds off the Negroponte model of the $100
laptop. Linux could leverage itself beyond the device market with open
hardware architecture.
That's a place VC's could invest and see significant leverage. With an
open hardware architecture Linux could scale farther than existing
platforms and combine existing devices into a robust platform unlike
those running Windows.
The Closer Look
Sun Microsystems' open source specifications for the Sparc chip has
little appeal. Consider than one more attempt for McNeally to find a
niche. Unfortunately for Sun shareholders, it's too little and way too
late.
Intel or AMD could engineer an innovative platform with solid state
components to give Linux users everything they want including
multi-media. That would also provide a stable environment for
Independent Software Vendors such as Adobe, Intuit and others to invest
in Linux.
Is it time for Linux to innovate and move out of its attempt to provide
a "me too" Windows machine? With the rapid innovation in wireless
telephones, it might prove useful to create a docking station that turns
into a PC with Linux running both devices.
Personally, I have never wanted a "me too" MS Windows machine. They are
too limited, irritatingly vulnerable to attacks, too static, too
expensive, and
too wasteful of whatever hardware you purchase to
support them. The only "me too" symptoms I've seen in GNU/Linux was the
relatively short-lived window manager called FVWM95 (I note that its
sourceforge page was last updated in 2001) and some recent, but misguided,
in my opinion, efforts to create a sort of Linux registry.
It appears that a lot of people are scared to use anything that is not
exactly what they've seen before, even if what they've seen before
causes them much frustration
and cost.
While that might not wind up as the principal differentiator, for free
software to have a long-term future we need innovation in the Linux
market. Perhaps it's time for you to "make somethng up eh".
People have been predicting the demise of free software for many, many
years, in spite of all evidence that says it is not only growing, but
accelerating in that growth. Its unique characteristics feed that
growth. Anyone may use it for any purpose, anyone may study it and
adapt it, anyone may distribute it to others, and anyone may improve it
and share those improvements. That is a formula for innovation and
growth. Reading daily announcements and news online is enough to see
that there are lots of people
making something up with free software. It looks like Microsoft
will once again be trying to play "me too", in a futile attempt to catch
up with Linux.
Oh, as for the title, Microsoft never competes. They
do everything they can to avoid real competition. See the multitude
of lawsuits.
I want to reiterate my respect for Mr. Adelstein's work. It is obvious
that we are viewing the state of GNU/Linux from different perspectives.
Mr. Adelstein apparently sees the measurable need for greater business
uptake of Linux on the desktop and a route to accomplishing that. I see
a desperate need for Linux to be used by a great many individuals, now,
as it is, to relieve them from the miseries of Microsoft code and to
relieve other Internet users from the costs of the fallout.
Clicking through the links above, it should be obvious that there have
been and continue to be considerable contributions to free software by
businesses. (While all businesses exist to make a profit, they are not
all damaging and predatory as is Microsoft). This supports Mr. Adelstein's
call for business involvement with Linux.
I just do not feel that those who know about Linux should ever discourage
those who can use it now from using it now. When outlining either advantages
or disadvantages of Linux, those should be given with respect to specific
groups of people. At one time, Linux was suitable for daily use only by
real hackers. It is far from that egg state now. The very specific, limited
needs of specialized groups which are yet unsatisfied by Linux have no bearing
on its suitability for hundreds of millions of ordinary people, now. They
need relief. Save a suffering user today.
The fine print:
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Linux specifically refers to the Linux kernel, but is popularly also used to
refer to entire operating systems composed of
GNU operating system components
used with the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux is an accepted way to make a distinction from
other systems such as GNU/Hurd or GNU/NetBSD.
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
References to "Unix" or "Unix-like" refer to
systems that operate in similar manner
to operating systems which have been certified as UNIX
systems by The Open Group. The Open Group holds the definition of what
a UNIX system is.
|
