Eric Raymond : "I'll make arguments based on what Microsoft is saying. Microsoft has repeatedly stated both in public and in private internal memoranda that have leaked that it regards Linux and open source as the only serious strategic threat that it faces, and a very serious one. "

So! Old Eric keeps spewing out his loony left Stalinist propaganda, disinformation, half-truths, outright lies an dirty tricks as usual huh?
Nothing new there.

Its easy enough to tear him apart.

1. First, Microsoft NEVER said Linux is the ONLY serious strategic threat that it faces. Microsoft has merely listed Linux as ONE of the serious startegic threats that it faces amongst many. There is a huge difference there.

2. Microsoft said exactly the same thing about Netscape back in 1996. Back then, Netscape was this HUGE startegic threat to Microsoft, no?
Where is Netscape now?. Netscape is now a road kill statistic. Expect the same thing to happen to Linux.
Linux is about as secure as a leaking sieve. Every stat I have seen from CERT has Windows far more secure than Linux everytime.
You think the SCO lawsuit is tough?
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Expect a HUGE flood of law suits from every kind of software company there is against Linux for every kind of intellectual property that has been illegally stolen and slipped into the Linux source code.
I consider the present moment to be the swan song of Linux.
In 2 years time Linux will be reeling from sustained, massive multipronged attacks.

3. In spite of all the Linux hype, Microsoft continues to INCREASE their market share in BOTH the desktop and servers, going up to an all time high of 55% in servers for 2002 according to IDC and INCREASING the gap with Linux in servers!
Microsoft doesn't sound much to me like a company in trouble here do they?

4. We haven't even talked about Microsoft's RECORD sales and profits in the last quarter and the expected RECORD sales and profits in the current quarter inwhich Microsoft will achieve sales of $8 billion in one quarterfor the first time in Microsoft history.
Then there is the little matter of a handsome $51 Billion in cash at the bank!
We have a war chest that can wage a very long sustained war and WIN IT, and WE WILL!

5. Whatever Eric Raymond is smoking, its playing tricks with his mind. He is still in dreamland. This happens to be the real world Eric. Wake up and smell the coffee, boy!

Trolling gets you nowhere..
The facts speak for themselves..
All you have to do is some basic reading to take YOUR arguements apart, Mr. Owusu..

I don't know what Kwasi is smoking but can I have some as well?

1. Dream on. Really, the best source of trusted information comes from Microsoft, right? Never ever conflicting in any way, right? No broken promises either, right?

2. Microsoft also said that they have secure products. Several times. They even still do every now and then. And the SCO lawsuit is a joke. Everyone knows that but only commercially motivated people like to be in denial. Can you say: hidden agenda? Netscape you say, oh right, they settled that one, right? And next time you check CERT be sure to actually understand the material in front of you. Kids can count. Actually evaluating correctly the true impact of what's stated on CERT requires real professional skills.

3. Dream on. Some of us actual life our lives outside of Microsoft's R&D and PR departments.

4. We? What we? There's the Microsoft brass and the rest of us milk cows. Also, remember the .com crash? $45B can evaporate quicker then you think. You see, milk cows have the nasty habbit of dying sooner or later.

5. Coffee won't wake you up. Solid research might. Reality is that Microsoft has peaked.

Kwasi,

What you and the rest of Microsoft have failed to realize is that this is not about LINUX, but is about "open source"--a method of software and intellectual property development that is gaining tremendous ground around the globe and spinning off new incarnations (read: creative commons). I've tried to get this message across to Steve Ballmer in some not so subtle ways, but he still just doesn't seem to get it. I saw the trite little "Matrix" spoof at COMDEX Microsoft did and that you allude to in #5 because I was there setting up an "open source" project. You may be working at Microsoft (which I assume you are from your we's) because it pays you a lot of money, but there are thousands of developers in the U.S. who will write code because they love to and want to improve their skills. And there are developers around the globe who will do it for less than it takes to pay you because the benefits stay local. While your company tries to get a handle on the Linux threat, perhaps you should try to get a handle on your job security. Or start looking into open source development now before it's too late. :)

Mr. Kwasi Owusu, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I just point you at one picture:
http://www.atai.org/softwarewar.png

And you know which way Microsoft is going...

On the chance that Kwasi Owusu is not merely trolling...

1. See Steve Ballmer's comments as far back as 2001, shown here at http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/19609/19609.html

"I'd put the Linux phenomenon really as threat number one."

Perhaps Kwasi Owusu knows more about Microsoft's business than Steve Ballmer, CEO?

2. Netscape was a company, susceptible to Microsoft's traditional anti-competitive, anti-capitalist tactics. See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Linux is not a company. Microsoft cannot defeat Linux by offering a cheaper version (they can't pay people to use MS Windows for long, and that's what it would take to be cheaper than $0). Microsoft cannot block Linux from PCs that are shipped with an OS, unless people fall for the Longhorn trap (when that ceases to be vaporware) or the MS Windows BIOS.

3. Perhaps Kwasi Owusu failed to notice that IDC is comparing license sales. To whom did IBM pay a license for Linux when they began running their $2.5 billion chip manufacturing plant? To whom did NYFix pay a license for Linux when they switched 1500 booths handling over 1 billion shares a day, or Deloitte systems who says Linux saves them $500 to $1000 per box? Try using Google to further your education on Linux servers. Since Microsoft invented new licensing schemes to squeeze more revenue from customers, naturally the percentage of Microsoft's share of all license fees went up. A few more million Linux servers with $0 license fees does not increase Linux's share of license fees overall.

4. Record profits, yes. Record sales, no. Check Microsoft's SEC filings where they report $768 million LESS in software contract sales than expected, due to Linux. Record profits for a monopolist are not amazing, they are an indicator of the stranglehold the monopolist has on its customer base.

5. This one is puzzling. I don't see any evidence that Mr. Raymond is smoking, let alone that he is smoking anything mind-altering. The comment about smelling the coffee is doubly puzzling in context. Will sniffing coffee eliminate the alleged mind-altering effects of whatever is alleged to have been smoked? This point by Kwasi Owusu is mystifying.

It's not about Microsoft, or Linux, or open source folks. It's all about our right to choose what we want to use as consumers.

So far Microsoft has taken great strides to ensure that the only choice we as consumers see in the marketplace is Apple/Mac. For the average home user the price alone takes them out of the equation.

It comes down to consumers making choices. Until we as a group decide to choose alternative software, we won't any trends shift. Its' a consumer driven market, let's take the wheel.

If Microsoft doesn't see Linux or open source as a threat, why have they taken such extreme measures to block government, educational, and business organizations from moving to open source... even going so far as to challenge the US Dept. of Deffense on their policy regarding open source?

The fact is that Microsoft IS a monopoly, regardless of what the court ruling was. The gloves fit O.J. and MS holds over 95% of the consumer desktop market. 'Nuff said.

Until consumers as a whole step up to the plate and begin to investigate alternatives to Microsofts under-tested, over-priced, and poorly written software we won't see that change any time soon.

So go out and download Knoppix, try out Linux, Open Office, Mozilla, etc. If you don't like it, uninstall it. What do you have to loose except the chain on your ankle that leads to Redmond, WA?

- Nube

Computers should be like other areas, such as phone, or cars. If you don't like the way your current provider is doing business, just switch. Things still work. We enjoy choice in these areas, and would be mad if such choice was gone. Open source provides a choice. Even if you don't use that option, it is nice to know you have the choice.

Eric Raymond is right. Microsoft is going down, Linux will replace it. The change will happen faster than anyone currently thinks is possible. Open Source AND Open Standards will become the norm. Microsoft can either get with the program or get run over.

This is a very important article because of who ESR was talking to. The investment community has been a huge booster of MS for a couple of decades. Now they are starting to realize that there is a revolution going on, and MS is in trouble. Watch for the MS stock price to nosedive in the next year or so.

Kwasi,

As a Netscapee myself, the issue that killed them was trying to get money for the browser long enough to transition to the server software market. What MS was able to do was choke that money stream and led to the Sun/AOL assimilation.

The problem MS has vs. Linux is that they can't underbid free. The big problem in the near horizon are the non-US gov't adoptions that are bound to have a cascade effect to businesses, etc. who want to work with those government offices. The Office lock-in is much stronger than Windows per se, and OpenOffice is starting to chip away at that. MS wouldn't have set up that anti-Linux slush fund if they weren't worried.

The SCO suit is the proverbial ant kicking the elephant's toe; nobody's taking them seriously.

In the post-9/11, post-CodeRed, post-Slammer world, the incessant MS security problems are starting to hurt them hard, and makes your noise about Linux security just that.

The balance sheet has a nice bump from all those fresh licensing fees, but that isn't going to last; MS is their own worst enemy in upgrades. Businesses are looking at whether they want their money to go to their own businesses or to MS. They're starting to see they have an option.

Kwasi,

Since you say WE when speaking about Microsoft can I assume that you are speaking for Microsoft? Are you saying that Microsoft is behind the current (bogus) IP FUD being spewed by SCO?

If this is the case, then Microsoft is clearly acting in violation of the anti-trust agreement. I'm forwarding this article to all the State AG's, and the Court involved for further investigation. Expect to be hearing from a lawyer soon. Is your address still 1 Microsoft Way?

On the subject of Anthony L.'s comment above, I posted a transcript of the Matrix spoof here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/001070.html

Raymond Leftisist? Haha, actualy his one of the furthest to the right of any of the Linux/Open Source Luminaries. Granted most Open Source people are somewhere left of center in their views Raymond himself advocates gun ownership and has no problem cozying up to big buisness. Why do you think he is being queried by Security analysits. His Open Source movement has been striving to tone down the more social movement of the Free Software advocates. I tend to see it as the Pragmatists vs. the Purists. Anyway, some people always like to throw around word leftist without trying to figure out what it realy means. I mean if you call Raymond leftist then you might as well call the whole of Europe extreamly leftist. Things like giving workers minimum four weeks of vacation, having strict privacy laws and even stricter gun ownership laws put them on average even further left than Raymond on the political spectrum.

--
J5

Kwasi Owusu,

Raymond is a libertarian. Only ignorant astroturfers could confuse (deliberately) that viewpoint with Stalinism.

"In 2 years time Linux will be reeling from sustained, massive multipronged attacks."

Uh-huh. Keep us informed of our whereabouts. Two years from now, I'll warm the crow.

ms doesn't hate open source development, it is just bothered by the idea of free licences.
In my opinion, ms could in the years to follow target the unix platform to use it against open source. The sco-ibm-linux battle is not about communist ideals of the opensource development community, but about public image, market share and money.Currently ms is poker-playing sco against open source and hopes that in the 2 years to come some large linux-using companies will convert to unix-ms based server platforms. As for the desktop market: a server-decapitated linux
wouldn't have much of a chance in heading towards the desktop market, unless some linux companies should pluck the tree of free development and convert to the unix business model. Companies like novell-suse (?) could walk this path and sell ms-like licensed server and desktop solutions. The power of open-source development and the industry-standard monopoly of ms company combined could mean a devastating loss to gpl (not for open source). A loss for sco will make both ms and linux-companies stronger. The following two years are about emotions, not about the question whether linux truly copied unix sysV code. We're talking about confusion: which expert is bought by which company and who will we believe? How will large linux-using companies like NASA react when the battle is heating up: shifting to unix or not? How much companies will be following? One should also considder what is happening under the gpl flag in russia and in the middle east. Some perfectly clean code could emerge and backfire at long term to ms. The power of linux stems not from the gpl but from the needs of companies and countries for cheap, highly flexible it solutions. If gpl loses (in public opinion) a licence from sco could open the way to 'local' small gpl's for large powerfull enterprises. In that case, 'low-profile' server platforms will not be as cheap a they are now, same for the desktop...On the other hand, the existence (sco vs linux outcome?)or the development of perfectly clean kernels is the real theat to unix and ms.You can rule out linux but you can't rule out open-source development.Linux, or whatever it will be called, can lose this battle but it is certain that it will come back.There's some huge potential in open-source around the globe, far greater than that of the ms-ruled world.

I think that the time of the desktop in over. Computers are getting fast enough and strong enough that we can have gigantic servers to dish up everything we need. The bandwidth is increasing so we will have the pipes. And the desktop will slowly go away as people preffer there dumb terminals in every room of the house there car whatever. These dumb terminals will be able to run whatever operating system that you want them to and it will not make a difference to the end user. And now you can see how Microsoft's Desktop is gone... Linux is a threat because it is cheap and its good. You don't have to worry about licensing fees. Programmers such as myself offer software as a service and we preffer free because it keeps our costs down and keeps our clients happy. Now my clients are using linux and they often do not even know it or care.

Those responding to "Kwasi Owusu" (the author of the initial comment in this thread) should know that I e-mailed the address at the bottom of the comment yesterday, asking if he is a Microsoft employee (which the comment certainly implied), and haven't yet received a response. More definitively, an operator at the main Microsoft switchboard says there's no one at the company by that name. In other words, unless it's someone using an alias, you might want to take it with a grain of salt.

1. As Eric Raymond pointed out some time ago - software is a service, not a product. If he is correct, Microsoft is running with the wrong business model. If their model is wrong (long term), then ultimately, they will have no choice but to change.

2. Lowest cost always wins. Microsoft grew because they were lowest cost. Cheaper than IBM, and cheaper tnan Apple. Now, Microsoft spends huge $$$ trying to convince people that they are cheap, cheap, cheap... Microsoft tries to justify their monopoly by saying that it is lowest cost. But Linux is much much cheaper. Think SNA, think NetBios, think Netware. Think about how fast TCP/IP destroyed other proprietary technologies, some of which are better than TCP/IP... Think Boeing, think Aerospatiale. Think Linux. Its the future ...

3. Microsoft is in the position of winning every battle, but will ultimately lose the war. The enemy they face cannot be defeated using the techniques which gave them initial success. In order for Microsoft to win, they must re-invent themselves. They must choose to destroy that which them strong, or they are lost. $50 Billion war chest. Very, very few CEOs have enough guts and vision to be able to walk away from $50 Billion, in order change direction in fundamental way....

Todd,

1. Microsoft HAS said this.

2. Yes, they killed Netscape by bundling Explorer as a fee browser when you bought Windows. Do they plan to give away Windows when you buy Office to kill Linux or ...? Your statements on Linux security are unfounded and unrelated to MS vs. Netscape. Your statements about lawsuits is similarly flawed with the added fun that Microsoft is the party constantly fighting lawsuits. I'm sure Linux could handle more legal issues. In fact, it's only IBM that has to deal with SCO, and it's not about "IP" but about contracts.

3. If they don't have anything to worry about then why are they worrying? Why is there this FUD campaign?

4. Actually you just did. And why are record sales surprising? Micosoft's new licensing scheme is more expensive for customers but because customers have nowhere else to turn they are paying up. That works well in the short term but doesn't tend to build good relationships.

5. Uh, ok, I'm not sure what your point is in item 5 other than to make ad hominem attacks about drug use and communism. If you knew his real political leanings you would realize how funny that is. But I guess it's more fun for you to make wild unsubstantiated remarks which are true in your own "fantasy land". Dirty tricks indeed.

Mark (Toher), you used my name, but just to clarify, you're responding to the five-point comment made above by Kwasi Owusu, whoever he may be. I don't want you to think that was my comment.

Having recently purchased a new laptop and having been told as I was shopping by all the major assemblers that they "can't" sell a laptop without Windows, I think it illustrates the problem of analyzing data on OS use/purchase.

There are growing numbers who don't like paying for something they don't intend to use. In this case, I decided to go with a small company that sells Windows-free laptops. That's MY idea of free Windows.

The dude who made the first comment has a bit of it on his chin don't you think.

Why go to the trouble defending Microsoft and how they will prevail, when you should be able to rest easy under Bill Gate's desk.

There is a bit of entertainment value here.

I implemented my first critical business application using linux around 10 years ago, before Windows 95! That was slackware with the 0.99 kernel.. linux has been growing ever since.. without the help of these press idiots and Microsoft weenies who just now woke up and took notice. Linux was useful then and it's a lot more useful now. As long as it keeps getting more useful it will keep growing, with or without these people. Remember, Microsoft had a stronger hold on the market 5 years ago than they do today, and linux has had it's biggest growth in that time. There is no need to prove anything to these naysayers or to meet their timelines. They just woke up and smelled the coffee. But we're MAKING the coffee. "Just keep on swimmin'"...

It's not really a war about economics.
It's a philosophy war.
For now the open source movement gained momentum because they have a closer feedback with their users.
But it won't last forever.
Stay assured that Microsoft will evolve, as they always did.
There always were "free" alternatives to Microsoft products, but every initiative failed.
The open source community has taken some really suspicious allies, like IBM...
Few can remember it, but Microsoft success was based on the fact that people truly hated IBM products, and their politics in the 70's and 80's.
You are right to say that SCO is a joke.
Just wait until IBM will make it's own version of linux and throw your beloved GPL in the trash like they did with so many other projects...

[...note - I've been a Linux user, developer, and internal evangelist since early 1992, and have done virtually all Linux for a living for a number of years. I've had 'some' success on the server side, I've been unable to sell changing the desktop for reasons I'll speak to below..]

My two-cents.

Eric is usually highly entertaining, but also usually highly incorrect in his predictions. He's assuming a nirvana where Fortune-50 companies can turn on a dime and switch just because it's the right thing to do. Hogwash. This is the real world here, and they've already invested the time and money and pain to buy a commercial product, generally from MS (for whatever reason).

Business people will not switch gears without a lifecycle cost improvement worth more than the return of investing that money...possibly requiring more than breakeven in N years due to needing to overcome the status quo and entrenched management politics.

(ie, would the Director who was the techie dweeb 15 years ago who recommended the switch from a mainframe to Windows 3.0 be strong enough to say "time has changed, rip it out and move to Linux" ? Not too often...)

"Switch because it's the right thing to do" arguments don't hold water in the real world. Would I re-roof my buildings because a new community-supported roofing co-op works non-profit ? No, because doing so would cause me pain and cost and risk during the transition...and sometimes the devil you know is better than the unknown.

Why is software supposed to be different ?

Folks in 'industry' will switch from MS products when (1) there is a viable alternative or (2)there is something so mind-boggling new or better that people's productivity is massively improved, and that (3) makes it worth the time/pain/money to switch the infrastructure, train the users, and retrain the folks who support the infrastructure.

Last time I saw (2) was the development of the web. MS ate it, on the desktop at least. Lawsuits happened. So it goes. I was anti-MS then, and I'm reasonably anti-MS now, but I also have to realize that (a) they got caught, (b) the courts spoke, and (c) although I think the 'settlement' was pathetic and not anything that will change behavior, it's over. MS won. They got the world pregnant on their software at absurd profits and paid a pittance in penalties. They're entrenched now, like it or not.

So given the (MS) status quo, how would you get a 'business' to switch ? Provide a real alternative, in a predictable timeframe, with real support, for much lower lifecycle costs to the users.

What I'd like to see happen is all these evangelists and anybody-but-MS competitors (Sun, Oracle, etc.) get some of their venture capital past stock options (ie, Eric's stake in VMware) together and 'fund' a real effort to come up with 'real' alternatives.

If there was a 'real' coordinated company whose evangelism was "we're going to make a free Office suite that blows MS-Office away" and "we're going to take back the desktop by making the o/s equally integrated and automated", then you're talking changing the world.

Somehow I don't see the evangelists putting their money where their mouths are. Lets see Ellison and McNealy et.al say something like:

"you know, I have enough billions, I'm going to finance a 'anybody-but-MS' alternative out of my own pocket, and invest $200M in a company that in 24 months will "give away" something to the world that is 'better', 'faster', 'safer', and 'more stable' that has 100% compatibility. I'm also establishing a foundation that will support this software for the next 25 years, so you can be assured of continued support".

Somehow I haven't heard that. I've seen Ellison investing tens of millions in trying to win the America's Cup, I've seen McNealy kill java as an alternative by holding it tight, I've seen Apple (which 'was' a better alternative) blow it by being too expensive and closed.

Eric's pontificating is all so much wailing at the moon, until some serious $$$ steps up to the plate to 'finance' an alternative and support the result, MS isn't going anywhere unless they make some pretty bad blunders. Right now there's no financial incentive to make a customer switch, and MS has no legal requirements to make their stuff better/cheaper/safer due to the EULAs.

And the status quo wins as a result due to the cost/risk/pain of changing on the hope of maybe improving things.

What's all this about support? Microsoft doesn't offer support. Oh yea, they have people you can call. But just see what happens when you have a really serious problem.. NOTHING. You are worse off than if you were running an "unsupported" OS like linux. I have experienced it myself many times. If you want to experience real support, buy something from Oracle, or IBM. If their product isn't working the way it is supposed to, they will figure it out.. if the first guy on the phone can't figure it out, they push it up to a more technical person, and then up again.. until you're dealing with the guys who work on the code. If necessary they'll code a patch for you and get it to you ASAP. I've seen it myself. IBM patched AIX to fix an obscure network problem that was killing us. Oracle engineers stayed on the phone all night helping us through a crisis. THAT is support. And you'll never get it from Microsoft.
But back to linux.. the reason the "support" issue has not stopped people from using linux, is because increasing numbers of people are figuring out that official support notwithstanding, if they have a really bad problem with Windows, they are probably just as screwed if not more screwed than they would be if they had been using Linux...
At least with linux you have access to millions of people who have solved problems for themselves. Usually at least one of them have solved the problem you are having and it's on a search engine somewhere. And of course you can still buy support. But one thing you don't have to deal with is any illusion that someone is there to solve your problems when they are not.

But the real joke here is thinking this is a war of words or a war of marketing or anything else. Microsoftians are so obsessed with the idea of "winning" that they can't think any other way. Why is it so important to you people that the Microsoft Way be the Only Way?? Some of us prefer linux. And why not use what we prefer to use? Apparently there are enough of us to keep linux growing... I see no need to trash Microsoft, but I don't like their products very much. If they would reverse their priorities around a little bit then I would like them a lot more. Right now they are:

#1 World Domination
#2 Write Software, as necessary to acheive #1
#3 Fix Software, when absolutely necessary to achieve #1

They would not have to fear linux if they did it like this:

#1 Write Good Software
#2 Attain Huge Wealth and Majority Market Share (Earned!)

If their product is as good as the Microsoft supporters say it is, there is no need for it to be any other way... Sure, they might lose a few points of market share if they play nice with the other kids, but the market share they would have, they would have earned by pleasing customers and earning their loyalty. As opposed to the all-or-nothing war they are now engaged in.

Oh, my god... I can't believe how hyper-sensitive and defensive some of you are. Time to offset all the bashers. Many of you are completely misguided, and regurgitate the same misguided, worn out diatribe that others have. You need to spend more time under the hood to see what is really going on rather than generating political dung. Look, Microsoft has been historically known for questionable marketing tactics, but who really cares? Not everyone has always agreed with their business tactics, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to product success. No other company in the world has been as successful as Microsoft. Of course MS has been attacked with viruses and worms. Those attacks will likely continue, because when you are number 1 and have held that position so dominantly, of course everyone else out there will be gunning for you.

I am not, nor was I ever a wannabe dot.comer or any of the "me too" tech wave riders that were finally being sniffed out along side the tech crash. I am a well-seasoned professional in the software industry. Anti-MS people are completely frustrated and full of envy against MS, and only spew venom and logic-starved arguments. Stop making excuses for other company and technology failures. Stop insinuating that capitalism is wrong. This country was founded on free enterprise and innovation. You are free to create just about anything you can imagine, yet it is your fair and legal right to be able to protect it. If you don't like Windows, you still have choices. You can either pick another platform, or write your own. No one put a gun to your head and told you that you have to run Windows. However, if your employer is an MS shop, and you don't like it, go work somewhere else, convince your boss with sound arguments for change instead of making up BS, or get with the program and use the platforms and tools needed to do the job and shut up about it.

Microsoft could not get to the position where they are, let alone hold on to it if they were not consistently selling very solid products, tools, and services. It doesn't mean the they do not have problems, but we have all seen empirical evidence that the problems they do have are overwhelmingly offset by their successes. Trying to dispute or ignore it doesn't help any of the already invalid personal, anti-MS arguments either. Why should Microsoft should have to apologize to anyone for their success? It is completely ubsurd. Okay, you may not personally like them, but that out unveils the main reason why people bash them. It is strictly for your own personal digust -- not true business decisions. The sooner you admit that, the sooner you can obtain a more positive outlook, and possibly improve your career.

Example 1:
I have worked in environments where a few qwerky engineers got way off track and tried to implement Linux on some of their workstations and development machines. When I asked valid questions as to why, when we were developing software on Windows, using Windows-based tools, and marketed towards Windows-based customers, I got responses such as: "Well, like Linux isn't Microsoft, and Linux is like kewl and stuff." Wow, how compelling! After several instances of trying to coordinate projects with them that were not getting done because of their hell-bent insistence to use something else other than Windows, I reminded them that we use Windows environment for everything we do here, that not only is Linux completely unnecessary, it also doesn't work with our workstation software or any of the software we are developing, and that Linux is a toy that doesn't belong in our workplace. A very interesting platform, but a toy for hobbyists nonetheless. Some of the board members heard the entire conversation, and after meeting with an embarrassed CEO, the anti-MS engineers stopped trying to run Linux at work.

Example 2:
Let me explain from yet another perspective from where I am speaking from. In another company I worked for, we were developing enterprise level management software, that offered customers a choice between an Oracle back end or SQL Server back end. Fair and objective I thought. After several phases during the development lifecycle, we ran into performance issues with Oracle, wherease SQL Server ran just fine. The execs wanted to hastily ditch the Oracle consultants, but I insisted that more time needed to be given to get the Oracle version hashed out. After some time spent on the issues, and doing extensive low-level performance tuning, the Oracle database began performing very well. (Keep in mind, this was back when SQL Server 6.5 was brand new, and a lot of incredible improvements have been made since then.) Even though our Oracle and SQL Server databases where running neck and neck on identical hardware, and were able to process over 60 million records within a 72-hour period, reality hit home with our customers, as well as ourselves that Oracle was just way too expensive of a solution, and required an army of consultants to maintain, whereas SQL Server had none of these troubling issues. MS has high prices? Outdated?! First off, that is a completely erroneous argument. Anyone that has truly implemented Oracle from the ground up, and SQL Server in the same environment from the ground up knows better. Oracle is a giant money pit. Furthermore, they keep churning our ancient recycled crap that they have been using. Oracle databases typically need constant attention, and several dedicated DBA's, where as the same work can be done with much fewer personel resources with SQL Server solution, pure and simple. Oracle is one of the biggest money pits in the industry the oftens gets companies nowhere. Oracle used to have over 60% of the database market (rightfully so, I might add), but that has drastically changed in favor or SQL Server, and the trends continue to indicate this strong movement to continue. I have had countless years experience on both sides of the fence and know the reality. The only sound decision at that time was to completely drop the Oracle database option, and strictly build the SQL Server solution. After numerous years in the software development industry, I have concluded that there are two types of people that use Oracle (a.k.a. "Obstacle"): Those that continue to use it because "it's the way it has always been done", and those that are too resistent to change and growth, and wish to keep a deathgrip on tools that are familiar with them. The attitude that you need Oracle for larger, enterprise environments is totally false. It is a tired, and worn out argument, and has been proven over and over again, especially with how SQL Server has improved over the years, and Oracle is still the same re-worked code that has seen few changes 7.3.3.3.2.2.3.3.54.5.3.2.3 to 8.3.3.5.3.3.5, to 9i. Okay, you should get the idea.

Nevertheless, it is quite an amazing site to see grouchy DBA's and engineers bend over backwards to try to make the tools (that they are familiar using) fit into a development project, rather than selecting the best tools for the project and the current technologies. Somewhere along the way, they lose all sense of reason, and rational thought. Any mention of other technology ideas they have no experience with will often make them highly defensive and irritable. Getting quality work done and competing with other talent is where things are supposed to be, so check your pride and ego in at the door and stop crying about Microsoft. Unless you work for a company directly competing with Microsoft, then Microsoft is not your battle anyway. Stockholders don't give a rip about your personal views, or any other self-absorbed weenie. Their concerns do not deviate. They care about profits, bottom line. In any case, I believe that open source is the wrong direction for the business world. The reality is that IT organizations have enough challenges dealing with service packs updates and multi-platform issues as it is. IT groups like to build topologies that they know are tried and true, and can maintain structure and some level of normalcy.

Example 3:
Statements about getting away from the desktop could not be further from the truth. That is being confuse by centralizing more server-based components for enterprise software. In contrast, the desktops are being built with more and more stand-alone features and power. The hardware side of the fence concurs by making more and more notebooks with options that give users more power and freedom, especially when on trips and in remote locations. Server-side only concepts obviously cannot work because of increased use of notebooks. Despite more and more movement with high-speed connections, and remote connection services, the irony is that it has created an incredible amount of traffic that puts incredible strain on WANS, SOHO's, and C.O.'s. Going back to "dummy terminals" is taking us back to the 70's and 80's. Most customers and end users would not put up with it, and would likely tell you where to stick that dummy terminal. Many companies painfully experienced the hard-learned lessons of putting all your eggs in one basket. Keeping a company moving and profitable, especially in a server outage has far greater consequences than distrubuted applications where a few may be having issues at the same time. Also, there are enormous costs associated with setups like that. Anyone with extensive experience with Citrix servers would know what I am talking about. Baseline servers start out at about 15K. An IT Director for a company I used to work for was implementing one, and I asked him what we needed it for. He said it was to run our office applications. I told him that everyone already has office applications running on their machines. Then, he stated that with the apps running on the Citrix box, they would run faster. I told him I would take that bet with him, and he lost miserably. Unless your machine is incredibly old or bogged down, (in which case you can just get a new one because they are so incredibly cheap today) office applications will always run faster on the local machine. Not much can be done to change that basic hardware-dependent fact. I told him, that even if hadn't had any software yet, that for 15K, would could given users brand new machines (which they already had powerful machines way beyond what was necessary) and still had money to pocket. With only a small group of engineers using it, we managed to bring the Citrix box to its knees. The IT manager immediately explained that the Citrix server wasn't big enough, so he bought a bigger one for almost 50K! Still, we had similar results, and yet, this one kept going down all the time, and we experience network hardware failures all the time. We didn't need to be dependent upon something that we really didn't need to be put in the position to be dependent on in the first place. Once again, he failed, and he realized I was right. He knew he had been clowned by application server hype by senseless money-syphoning companies like Citrix, and he gave the expression of humiliation. I warned him, but he had to go through the expensive lesson before he gave up the idea. Folks, companies like Citrix are trying to solve a problem that doesn't have to exist in the first place. For that kind of money, you can buy several screaming servers with raid controllers, throw Win2K Server on it, and cluster them if you really have to. What most IT groups find out is that you don't usually have to resort to that when there is already enough application distrubution in place.

If some other vendor comes out with a platform that is tried and true, cost effective, offers the same or more features, and supports all the software, then more companies will show interest in it, and if the tools and support are good enough for it, then it will eventually beat out Microsoft. If it happens, then I will embrace and move forward with it. If I whined and resisted like many of you here, I would never have gone far in my career. The most compelling flaw in open source or "open standard" (oxy-moron) movement simply boils down to is that once open-source environments are deployed, there will be no known states of machines when there is a problem, quite simply because users are so incredibly free to make changes where there should actually be some level of integrity to maintain. Even when they have a choice between "free" open-source platforms and tools vs. industry-proven products that cost money, the reality proves that most companies as well as consumers would rather pay for something that works well, rather than use something "free" that doesn't work with the software they have. The main reason why many products are free, is because 99% of the time, it is pure crap (just like anything else that is free in the world, like free AOL minute CD's) that will have more hidden costs than if you paid for something that does what you need. Oh yeah, Microsoft is going down because open source vendors are trying to give away their products. Yeah, we have to give away our software because it is so much better than Microsoft's. What?! That anti-MS arguement doesn't hold any logic. Besides, the humorous irony is that this tactic was used by Microsoft, but for different reasons: Browsers were pretty much a done-deal once IE 4.0 came out. Plus, seamless integration with other platform components and API's were coming together, so it only made sense to distribute it with the O.S. Even with the nasty pissing matches put up against Microsoft by others, Microsoft came out on top, and none of the other software companies be as successful by giving away software. Folks, if you can't figure this one out, then you have much bigger problems.

The reason why even the smallest problems with Microsoft products are so visible to the world is because so many people are using their products in countless environment configurations. Their products simply receive the most exposure and scrutiny, which in turn only makes subsequent product versions that much stronger. Had it been that it were Red Hat or Solaris created even a small percentage the success of what Microsoft has, you would hear much of the same cynical mud on them as well. Nevertheless, that is unlikely as Microsoft can fart more business success than any of the anti-MS (Oracle, Sun, etc.) companies out there combined. Don't think so? Stick around and see what happens in the next couple of years. Chances are overwhelmingly in favor of Microsoft being more profitable and successful than ever before. Enjoy your dreams all you want, but sooner or later, the anti-MS personal pettiness will hit you in the face, even if you are completely out of touch with reality. It is nothing personal. It is just business people. Buck up.

Paul

Kwasi Owusu and paul, if you believe Microsoft product are the best choice for the users please contact me or visit www.microsoftusernetwork.com