About Linux: An Open Letter to Microsoft

Information Week ^ | 20 October 2003 | Bob Evans

[ShadowAce]

Tech Ping

[sticker]

The main push for Linux seems to be coming from two main sources: (1) The true techie, these are the people that took their mom's sewing machine apart when they were little just to see what was inside. They enjoy tinkering with the machines or with the code to see what all they can get a program to do. (2) Company IT people, these are the folks that are pushing it because their jobs depend upon finding someway to make it more difficult for a company to buy a computer and set it up. Computers and the software for them have become so simple and easy to use, IT people have to justify their existence.

[MarkeyD]

You got it baby!

[Restorer]

Computers and the software for them have become so simple and easy to use, IT people have to justify their existence.

Correct.

As long as everything keeps working.

When computers goes down, the IT guy suddenly becomes very popular around here.

[etcetera]

"Enough--it's time to switch to somebody who makes it easier for us to do what we need to do."

I've already reached that point. Our new application server OS will be Linux. And I'm setting up a trial client PC that will run Linux. The problem is the application software - Star Office, Internet browsers. We work with other agencies who have bought the total Microsoft solution, and have coded applications that use Internet Explorer as the user interface. But I told my boss I'm going to try to get away from Windows licenses and patches. I'm always downloading and applying patches...

[Not_Who_U_Think]

Shouldn't Linux be the one working towards MS compatibility and not the other way around?

[smith288]

Bob Evans, Editor is Chief.

[smith288]

Dont I know... I used to be 1 of 2 lan Admins and when the system was up 99% of the time, our salary was always on the cutting block but when things went poopoo, guess who was everyones friend?

[CodeMonkey]

If Microsoft really wanted to slit Sun's corporate throat they'd sign an agreement with Ximian and the FSF to give them an unfettered legal right to the Mono developers to implement the ECMA specs, SWF, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc. It would be no skin off their backs as people who want to use Mono generally either can't or won't use MS products.

[CodeMonkey]

Shouldn't Linux be the one working towards MS compatibility and not the other way around?

Yep, the day that Microsoft better supports open standards than the average open source product.

[Question_Assumptions]

Microsoft Office sells quite well on the Mac. I suspect that Office would sell quite well on Linux. But because Microsoft is an OS company and an application company and the left hand won't let the right hand do anything that could hurt it, we'll never see that.

[ShadowAce]

I can read just about any type of file produced on a Microsoft box. I can even execute Windows code. This is even when MS won't open up their standards, or their APIs.

How much more effort do you want before calling for MS to meet somewhere in the middle?

[narby]

But I told my boss I'm going to try to get away from Windows licenses and patches.

Patches because of viruses?

As soon as Linux is as popular as MS, the viruses will all be directed there. And they will be powerful viruses, because their developers will have access to source code (perhaps planting weaknesses in it themselves for future use?) Then who will develop your patches? Who will you sue for non-support?

[Common Tator]

The problem is not how to make Windows work with Linux, the problem is how to make LINUX work with Windows.

The LINUX guys constantly demand that Windows conform to LINUX. Get a friggen CLUE. If I could make Linux work as a file, email, and web server with windows clients as easily as I can make a Windows 2000 or 2003 server work with windows Clients then Bill GAtes could quit worrying about selling my Clients Server products. The game would be over for me. LINUX would be used for everyone of my clients. But right now LINUX is being used by zero of my clients.

If you try to figure out how to make a Linux machine an email sever and you will go nuts. LINUX users will spend more money on training than a Windows 2000 server costs. Windows requires NO TRAINING COSTS.

Every version of Red Hat changes the way nearly everthing installs and configures. If you go to a store and buy a book on LINUX you will find it either does not apply to the verion of LINUX you have or its 800 pages fail to cover what you need to know to make the LINUX server work in your situation. LINUX for us is a giant waste of money and time.

It ain't worth it .. I just pay Bill Gates 3 or 30 thousand dollars per client and don't worry about LINUX.

If LINUX were only five or six times as hard to use as a server as a windows 2000 server, we would use it. But LINUX for free is way too expensive in support and maintanence for my clients to afford.

Get it thruough your heads. LINUX servers will need to install and maintain just like Windows servers if they ever hope to have any major impact.

Bill Gates is betting that the LINUX egos are way to big for them to become a real competitor and mimic the windows installation, configuration, and operation. The LINUX Server people will never do it the WINDOWS server way.

So far Gates has been right... LINUX is not a viable competitor.

Gates problem is what to spend the billions and billions of dollars MS makes. Until the LINUX people figure out they will have to conform to windows rather than Windows conform to LINUX, Gates need do nothing except count his money.

[HAL9000]

Shouldn't Linux be the one working towards MS compatibility and not the other way around?

They both need to be working toward interoperability and open standards. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't want to publish the specifications of their file formats and communication protocols.

The quickest way to solve the interoperability problem is for the goverment to set a purchasing policy giving preference to products that adhere to open standards.

[ShadowAce]

The problem is not how to make Windows work with Linux, the problem is how to make LINUX work with Windows.

Wrong. The problem is to get your environment working the way your business works--not whether one OS works with any other OS. What the author is saying is that MS wants business to conform to the software, rather than using software that conforms to the business. That whole concept of business and selling software is out of date, and very user-unfriendly.

[RS]

"As soon as Linux is as popular as MS, the viruses will all be directed there. And they will be powerful viruses, because their developers will have access to source code (perhaps planting weaknesses in it themselves for future use?) Then who will develop your patches? Who will you sue for non-support?"

EXACTLY ! Linux IT people will be pulling their hair out.

"Noone ever got fired for specifying Microsoft."

[ShadowAce]

And they will be powerful viruses, because their developers will have access to source code (perhaps planting weaknesses in it themselves for future use?

Come back when you've actually researched the open source method of development. You obviously don't know the effort that goes into getting code into the codebase.

OTOH, how many virii are out there now for Windows? I've heard estimates of over 60,000. How many people get to view THAT source code? The point is, people don't need to see source code to write viruses, so your argument breaks down there.

The second point is that Linux actually runs the Internet, and is MUCH more prevalent in the world than Windows, in terms of public service and information distribution, yet there are less than 1,000 virii for Linux.

Hmmm--I wonder why that is?

[Squawk 8888]

You got that right. On a consultant's recommendation I had a linux box set up as a mail relay and it was hell. I was getting a dozen emails from Red Hat every week about new patches that need to be installed, the mail relay bogged down if a receiving machine wasn't responding, the log files were buried and the documentation was awful. I finally junked it and loaded a mail server package onto a spare Windows box, took me all of 30 minutes to set up and has been running trouble-free for two weeks. What the linux people conveniently forget to mention is that they get just as many patches as Windows, but unlike Windows those patches have to be applied manually. No thanks- I'd rather spend my time developing new apps than waste it trying to get my servers to work.