Posted on 08/21/2003 7:23:21 AM PDT by justlurking
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica.
But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.
In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.
Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he's been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.
Q: Can you start by giving us a brief rundown of how you became an open-source advocate?
A: I became an open-source guy because we're a privately owned company, a family business that's been around for 30 years, making products and being a good member of society. We've never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills. And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.
The BSA had a program back then called "Nail Your Boss," where they encouraged disgruntled employees to report on their company...and that's what happened to us. Anyways, they basically shut us down...We were out of compliance I figure by about 8 percent (out of 72 desktops).
How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive. What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy.
Did you want to settle?
Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into.
What happened after the auditors showed up?
It was just negotiation between lawyers back and forth. And while that was going on, that's when I vowed I was never going to use another one of their products. But I've got to tell you, I couldn't have built my business without Microsoft, so I thank them. Now that I'm not so bitter, I'm glad I'm in the position I'm in. They made that possible, and I thank them.
So it was the publicity more than the audit itself that got you riled?
Nobody likes to be made an example of, but especially in the name of commerce. They were using me to sell software, and I just didn't think that was right. Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there. They went right for the gut...I think it was because it was a new (geographical) area for them, and we're the No. 1 manufacturer in the county, so why not go after us?
So what did swearing off Microsoft entail?
We looked at all the alternatives. We looked at Apple, but that's owned in part by Microsoft. (Editor's note: Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997.) We just looked around. We looked at Sun's Sun Ray systems. We looked at a lot of things. And it just came back to Linux, and Red Hat in particular, was a good solution.
So what kind of Linux setup do you have?
You know what, I'm not the IT guy. I make the business decisions. All I know is we're running Red Hat with Open Office and Mozilla and Evolution and the basic stuff.
| I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source. |
We were creating the cocktail that people are guzzling down today, but we had to find it and put it together on our own. It's so funny--in three and half years, we went from being these idiots that were thinking emotionally rather than businesslike...to now we're smart and talking to tech guys. I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software. One of the great things is that we're able to run a poor man's thin client by using old computers we weren't using before because it couldn't handle Windows 2000. They work fine with the software we have now.
How has the transition gone?
It's the funniest thing--we're using it for e-mail client/server, spreadsheets and word processing. It's like working in Windows. One of the analysts said it costs $1,250 per person to change over to open source. It wasn't anywhere near that for us. I'm reluctant to give actual numbers. I can give any number I want to support my position, and so can the other guy. But I'll tell you, I'm not paying any per-seat license. I'm not buying any new computers. When we need something, we have white box systems we put together ourselves. It doesn't need to be much of a system for most of what we do.
But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc.
What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever they want.
The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch of stuff on people's desktops they don't need to do their job, chances are they're going to use it. I don't have that problem. If all you need is word processing, that's all you're going to have on your desktop, a word processor. It's not going to have Paint or PowerPoint. I tell you what, our hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser. For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do they need a Web browser? The idea that if you have 2,000 terminals they all have to have a Web browser, that's crazy. It just creates distractions.
Have you heard anything from Microsoft since you started speaking out about them?
I got an apology today from a wants-to-be-anonymous Microsoft employee who heard me talk. He asked me if anyone ever apologized, because what happened to me sounded pretty rough to him, and I told him no. He said, "Well, I am. But we're nice guys." I'm sure they are. When a machine gets too big, it doesn't know when it's stepping on ants. But every once in a while, you step on a red ant.
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well?
| The myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft. |
I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.
It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical.
You've pretty much gotten by with off-the-shelf software. Was it tough to find everything you needed in the open-source world?
Yeah, there are some things that are tough to find, like payroll software. We found something, and it works well. But the developers need to start writing the real-world applications people need to run a business...engineering, art and design tools, that kind of stuff...They're all trying to build servers that already exist and do a whole bunch of stuff that's already out there...I think there's a lot of room to not just create an alternative to Microsoft but really take the next step and do something new.
Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled. I feel like I'm being threatened again.
They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn't mention it. But I don't like how they're doing it. What they're doing is casting a shadow over the whole Linux community. Look, when you've got Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be supported. It's a major consideration when you're making those decisions.
What if SCO wins?
There are too many what-ifs. What if they lose? What if IBM buys them? I really don't know, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can't believe somebody really wants to claim ownership of Linux...it's not going to make me think twice.
You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as Windows. And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they care about me? If they cared about me, they wouldn't have approached me the way they did in the first place...And I'm glad they didn't try to get me back. I thank them for opening my eyes, because I'm definitely money ahead now and I'm definitely just as productive, and I don't have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.
That's a reasonable assumption. But, it isn't relevant in this case. The article specifically says that entire machines were handed down to other users, without uninstalling software that was used by the engineers.
This is a sideshow. Regardless of where you get your machine, you get a license. You're trying to erect a strawman regarding how people get their machines. Nice try, but it's still a strawman.
Sorry, but it was your strawman -- by trying to bring OEM licensing into it. When, I called you on it, you changed your story. And now you are getting defensive because I pointed out that you changed your story.
Based on the information that we have, it wasn't OEM-installed software that got him into trouble. It was the software used by the engineers that was inadvertantly passed on to the clerical staff.
8% of 72 desktops amounts to greater than $1,000.
Actually, the owner is quoted that a total of a few dozen unlicensed applications were found on 8% of the 72 desktops. We don't know what those applications were, except they were used by the engineers and weren't used by the clerical staff. My guess would be some development tools like Visual Studio and associated components. And, that would quickly add up to more than $1000.
Of course you'd say that: You regularly side with freeloading GPL bigots.
I have licenses for all of my proprietary software. I use a variety of it (3 different licenses for Windows, plus Quicken and seven different registered shareware applications), along with software licensed under the BSD, GPL, Apache, Artistic, and a number of other open-source licenses. That hardly makes me a "bigot":
bigot. n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
If you want to observe the behavior of a good example of a bigot, I suggest you look in a mirror.
And it's really humorous because you lack the basic information which led the BSA to audit Ball in the first place; consequently, you're in no position to make any such determination.
And neither are you. You just assume it was willful, even though the owner believed he had a case to prove that it wasn't willful. He chose to not pursue it because he would have had to pay the legal fees on both sides.
That information came from an ex-employee that was responsible for license compliance. Gee, could the person willingly violating the license be the BSA's information source if he didn't know better? And why wasn't he the target of their anger? Perhaps because they couldn't extract $90,000 out of his hide. Rather than telling Ernie Ball, "Gee, your ex-employee says that you've got software that isn't properly licensed -- please pay for a license or delete it." they opted for an unannounced raid with US Marshalls and tens of thousands of dollars in fines while the guy who was responsible for keeping track of licenses and who obviously knew better had what happen to him?
It didn't come out of the blue sky. And frankly, as far as assumption of innocence or guilt goes ... unless somebody has recently established me as a court of law, I bear no such burden. I could care less whether you like my standard.
Yes, people with little regard for the Constitution or individual rights rarely have much use for due process.
The BSA is an industry organization that represents many different software companies. They gave it the authority to act on their behalf. Of course companies don't have to cooperate -- but they risk getting sued. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to poke a stick in the eyes of giants, you better be prepared for the response.
And you, of course, are on the side of "giants". How sweet. That some of the "little people" might accidentally get stepped on is of no concern to you, I presume?
Look at it this way: If they comply with the licensing terms, they have nothing to worry about; if they wanna get flaky, though, they're going to pay a price.
And look at if this way. If you use free software with no licensing conditions, you don't have to worry, either, and you don't have to pay money for priviledge of having to meticulously track licenses or else. As a TCO issue, this is a loser for Microsoft.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.
I personally think that the GPL is too "grabby" and that without the GNU library license, Linux would be dead and one of the free BSDs would be the talk of the town. Please note that not all open source software is GPLed and that the GNU library license allows linking in software without it being grabbed by the GPL. Both of these are good things, in my opinion.
I own copies of Office on my Mac because if find Word and Excel without peer on merit. I have several Microsoft project management books because they are excellent. And my complaints against Microsoft have to do with their anti-competative behavior and abuse of power (real or potential) and not Bill Gates' wealth or the right of Microsoft to make money off of their software.
As infrastructure, the attraction I have to open source software is more that it is open than it is free. No company controls it which means that things like Linux distributions compete on their merits. Capitalism is wonderful but without competition, it suffers from many of the problems that socialism has for much the same reason -- lack of competition leads to complacency and lack of responsiveness to the needs of consumers.
I do think that your definition suffers from a certain amount of projection, though. You seem to think that GPL advocates are wicked and don't have much tolerance for their opinions. The pot calling the kettle black, I think. If you want other people to respect your opinions, you might start by respecting the opinions of others yourself.
I don't use Linux, but my department chair does, on his desktop. It ain't impossible. It ain't even rocket science.
Maybe I'll set up a Linux machine one of these days, just for the fun of the experiment.
One of the things I really don't like about MicroSoft is that they are cutting off support for older OSs. This is known as "holding a gun to the end user's head".
ROTFLOL! at YOU!
For your information, I work in the Chemical Engineering Department. These guys are solid with facts, figures, and the ones who are interested in politics are Republicans.
It's a shame there can't be any discussion of this. It seems that any online discussion of anyone using linux on the desktop will instantly be set upon by a team of thread-nukers whose only goal is to shift the discussion onto anything except that here is a little company that converted all its desktops to linux. And they're pretty happy with the way it's all turned out. Microsoft Shilling and Astroturfing Thanks to the efforts of the highly successful thread disruptors, we now have a hundred notes of lawyering, name-calling, and hoo-hah about software licensing... and hardly a word about this:
What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever they want.Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well?
It's hysterical, all right. But not as hysterical as the reaction of the Microsoft Wives to the idea that somebody might come along and read an article about this quite ordinary little company, see the part about, "I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money," and think, "maybe we ought to look into that." It won't be for everybody... nothing is. But you'd think the subject could at least be discussed in public without being set upon by disruptive thugs. |
<=>
Beginning to think that all these people can understand is PICTURES.
Sadly, they do not exist.
Have you seen Ardour and Rosegarden ?
I haven't had a chance to play with either yet, but they look pretty nice to me! They require ALSA sound drivers, and I'm still running OSS drivers. I do plan to install ALSA drivers soon, specifically for the ability to run Ardour, Rosegarden, and Cinelerra.
Exactly. And, when your replace that machine with another bought from an OEM supplier, you get another set of licenses for that machine.
But, that's not what happened. Desktops used by engineers went to clerical staff. The clerical staff didn't use the software in question, so it's probably safe to assume that it wasn't the OS or the Office suite. Do you know any OEMs that install software used by engineers, but not by clerical staff?
Are you smoking crack?!?
No, I'm not. And, I don't appreciate the ad-hominem attack. You have already had one of your postings deleted from this thread. How many more before the AM's ban you altogether?
The type of license (OEM or site license) is irrelevant. You're the one who wanted to draw some kind of distinction. I merely used OEM licenses as an example since the overwhelming majority of users get their software in that manner.
Yes, but you still won't admit that the description indicates that the infringing software was not supplied by the OEM. It is indeed an important distinction, because it means the difference between willful infringement (buying a computer and installing the software supplied by an OEM for another computer), and inadvertant infringement (forgot to uninstall non-OEM software before giving the computer to someone else).
Agreed. I'm a commercial software bigot. I don't think it's profitable for our country to give away the fruits of our labors to Third World sh*tholes that will steal American jobs.
That's your choice. But, I don't have a narrow view, especially since proprietary software vendors are also out-sourcing development and support to the third world. I don't know if Microsoft does it, but I know that Hewlett Packard is doing so and plans to accelerate it.
My strategy is to provide the most cost-effective solution for our clients, whether it is open-source or proprietary. If I tie my hands and insist on one or the other, then there is a real possibility that a competitor will displace us with a better solution that we refused to consider. Pre-disposition for or against a cost-effective solution is not in my interests or my customer's interests. Bigotry has no place in business.
Obviously, the guy had no idea that the unlicensed software was running on his machines or he did know about it and did nothing. I don't have much sympathy for incompetence or willful theft.
I'll let the owner speak for himself:
[W]e're a privately owned company, a family business that's been around for 30 years, making products and being a good member of society. We've never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills. And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.
So he didn't know. Was it incompetence? In your world, maybe. But again, I'll ask the question that you keep dodging: would your company survive a detailed audit, down to the last piece of installed software? If not, whose fault is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
This was a nice little article about one little company that converted all its desktops to linux. They're pretty happy with the way it's all turned out.