The argument I hear -and have sometimes made is:
"Microsoft got into the back office -with a very lame server operating system,
because it was "ubiquitous" and perceived as "easy" to use, versus Novell,
Banyan, UNIX, MVS, VMS, etc., at the time."
Microsoft became ubiquitous because IBM was ubiquitous. IBM was the micro
"business machine," because they "opened" their platform to developers. It was
ubiquitous on the home desktop and in the workplace not necessarily because it
offered a broad selection of software ideas and because it was accessible for
profit to the programmers.
If we go back in time for a minute, and remember that Novell pinned its
development to DOS and even though it was better at the time (NDS, etc.), it
was very obvious that all Microsoft had to do was throw money and talent at the
Novell problem, which they did successfully.
Windows "Server," regardless of its weaknesses at the time had meaning. For
those hoping to enter that market as Systems "Engineers," that perception of
"easy" meant they had hope and salvation, or at least an entry-level place to
start. For corporations, it meant they would soon have a "commodity" work
force, who was "just happy to be there." What congress could not do with the
tax laws, Microsoft did with its servers; and recruiting firms, through the
establishment of the NACCB did the rest with their lobbying efforts (“But I
thought talent agents were only allowed to charge 10%, Mom.” “Yes, that’s
right Johnny, unless they’re computer talent agents, because we need a cheap
computer workforce for the next several generations” “But is that really fair,
Mom? Isn’t that illegal? Aren’t the companies’ paying the same amount or more
anyway? Isn’t it anti-competitive to single-out one group of entrepreneurs,
force them into a special set of rules and disallow them from taking part in
the dream of owning an independent business, just because they are in demand?”
“No Johnny, it isn’t, if you make it legal by enacting a law.” “Now, go to
your room Johnny, you’re making the nice CEO and the Senator nervous”).
People and companies deployed Windows servers not because it was "better" but
because it was "easier." No one trusted their mission critical applications to
it, for a long time, and in many areas of the enterprise they still do not,
with good reason. It was deployed because held lots of promises for lots of
constituencies. Microsoft knew that and they are excellent sales people.
And, it kept most of those promises.
However, in thinking through this and in reading some of these posts, I truly
do think that the time, and that opportunity for ubiquity on the desktop, has
past -for several reasons:
1. No one is going allow themselves to be held hostage to a single vendor
any longer. That may not be the impetus for the origin of the open source
projects, but that desire for autonomy, ultimately became the largest driving
force.
2. There is significant competition among many flavors of the same thing
(i.e. 'NIX) and all of it connects well to its competitors.
3. The competition for the server market will force Microsoft to become a
commodity product who offers professional services...just like everyone else.
Microsoft had barely begun to be taken seriously in 1997 when Linux had already
garnered 17% of the new server market. Remember, Win2000 Adv. Svr. (arguably
their first decent offering) did not arrive until 2001. I don't know much
about about Svr 2K8 but 2K3 is a very large, heavy OS, that literally pleads
and begs its admins. NOT to do certain things, that could take out the entire
server base, in a given forest if executed properly ("improperly," is a more
accurate word). It is an unwieldy, heavy, high flying, complex, web of
administration and replication connectivity, that could crash at any moment if
treated with malicious intent. It's not unlike the Winchester Mystery house in
some ways.
4. Many things will force MS to try to merge/buy a 'NIX vendor but the
computing and business worlds will NOT allow it -and regulators will not allow
it. If they are not allowed, due to the potential anti-trust or monopolistic
implications, they'll make sweet-heart deals to stay alive and viable, using
their power in the marketplace to pit one vendor against another, etc. (I mean
offer incentives that are beneficial to vendors at different "levels" ;) ).
5. The competition for the desktop mind-share has already begun to erode
Microsoft's hold. When considering the ease of connectivity of the front-end
clients with the back-end server base, and their ability to replicate highly
customized "Standard Desktops," the 'NIXs have established a well-defended and
significant beachhead. Corporations are deploying ‘NIX standard desktops in
the hundreds of thousands and the only thing keeping the numbers from growing
exponentially faster, are the astronomical fees the Vendors and VARs are
charging for “Professional Services” and “Consulting.”
6. This is beginning to happen with "regular" people now. Joe User is
buying Linux based desktops and notebooks, set-up in the factory, that are well
supported and that run like a champ. They’re even desiring to tinker with the
x86 implementations of Solaris, etc., as we’ve seen here.
7. I think "Brand" ubiquity is all but gone within the next 4-5 years. I
also think that while you'll have some die-hard Windows users, and there'll
always be the Mac cult (Mac is beautiful -and now it is UNIX), we are going to
see 'NIX move to over 50% of the desktop market.
In fact: “I hereby declare, on this 30th day of July, 2007, “Brand ubiquity on
the computing desktop is dead!”
8. However, people will NOT be buying just "any" 'NIX, they'll be buying
the products who've shown that they are focused on making the desktop not just
functionally solid, but who've also made the interface intuitive, very easy to
use and that meets a higher standard visually than merely "aesthetically
pleasing;" they'll have to be aesthetically exciting and visually versatile; I
mean fashionable! As we like our cars’ interior styling, in the same way we
will like our computers’ interface.
ejm
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
