Why Microsoft was right about Linux
By Charles Cooper
Special to ZDNet
January 24, 2003, 5:53 AM PT
COMMENTARY--What do you know? Microsoft was right about Linux all along.
Back in 1998, when lawyers for the software company tried to debunk the
federal government's monopoly charge against it, they argued that the
dynamics of an operating system market were inherently fluid.
That was good for a chuckle.
Then Microsoft's attorneys began to talk about the competitive threat posed
by the Linux open-source operating system as proof the government was
talking out of its hat.
That brought the house down.
Cynics dismissed the argument as a transparent ploy to convince a doubting
judge. The thrashing then being meted out to Microsoft by lead government
attorney David Boies came close to constituting a crime against humanity.
Any argument was worth a shot, but this one was the equivalent of a "Hail
Mary" pass in the waning moments of a game.
However with the passage of years, it's clear that--whatever the original
motivation--Microsoft's strategists had more insight into Linux than most
of the critics.
Linux on Intel-based computers is now likely to become the dominant
platform in corporate data centers, according to a recent report from
investment bank Goldman Sachs. That puts even more pressure on Microsoft to
persuade Unix users to stick with its Windows operating system on Intel
systems rather than move to Linux. (That's no easy feat these days.)
Indeed, if it fails to stop the groundswell, Microsoft may be forced to
radically rethink its strategy as none of the company's server platform
products now run on Linux. One scenario offered by analysts at First Boston
has Microsoft switching gears and supporting Linux on key subsystems like
Exchange and SQL Server and the .Net framework.
And then there's the IBM factor to consider.
Windows trounced OS/2 in a furious operating systems battle back when
George Bush Sr. was president and Lou Gerstner was still busy at RJR
Nabisco trying to sell folks more Velveeta and Tang.
Smartly retiring from a contest it had little chance of winning, IBM left
the field to Microsoft, which cemented its desktop dominance and emerged as
the most powerful software company in history.
There things stood for over a decade, but--F. Scott Fitzgerald aside--there
are second acts. In this rematch with Microsoft, Big Blue has the stronger
hand, owing to its very public embrace of Linux three years ago.
IBM is bent on making a commodity out of Intel-based hardware with an
operating system derived through the open-source process. Its pitch to
corporate Unix customers running Sun Microsystems' Sparc or other
proprietary chips is that Linux on Intel offers virtually the same
performance--but at a far lower hardware price. Once they bite, that then
opens the door for IBM to rake in the money selling middleware and services.
If IBM pulls it off, Microsoft risks getting cut out of a lot of corporate
business. The various responses out of Redmond suggest that management does
not have an obvious answer to the open-source question.
Bill Gates once derided the "Pac-Man-like nature" of the General Public
License (GPL) that governs the distribution of open-source code. His
trusted associate, Jim Allchin, even suggested it was "an
intellectual-property destroyer."
All that played poorly in the press and even worse with customers who
couldn't fathom how it was relevant to their business. Microsoft has since
dropped the smear campaign in favor of technology comparisons that focus on
a discussion of tools, the .Net framework and ways to make a company's
developers more productive. Execs also are playing up what they see as the
benefits of a tight integration model with a single sign-on, a common
management infrastructure and a consistent user experience.
Corporate customers hearing of Microsoft's new company line at LinuxWorld
in New York this week won't make up their minds about all this overnight.
But with spending still tight, the question of whether to buy an integrated
offering or a service solution gets trumped by a simpler consideration: The
stuff has to work and not cost an arm and a leg.
And that is simply music to the ears of the penguinistas.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-981981.html
APster pool to put Bill out of our misery? (my 2 e-dinars)
