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.
These sorts of things kill me. My little company makes a fair amount of money each year, and we're a MicroSoft shop.
But our clients are screaming about things like the lack of official corporate support for old versions of OS's, languages, tools, etc.
And it isn't just that MicroSoft is dropping their support for their old versions, there are also enormous backwards compatibility issues. Got some applications out there that are working fine, but using old Access 97 db's (and worse, due to MicroSoft's OS architecture, using the old dll's)? Well, tough because someone just upgraded to Access 2000 and converted a working mdb file, so now your old, fully functioning, bulletproof proprietary software isn't working any longer because it can't read its own database due to the new Access 2000 format.
Got software written in Visual Basic 6? Well tough, the new Dot Net isn't backwards compatible with it.
And it's more than just a lack of support combined with a lack of backwards compatibility.
Install your default copy of Windows 2000 and your ports are left open by default, meaning that it takes about 20 seconds for the Blaster virus to hit you with an RPC call before you can even download a ZoneAlarm firewall to stop such hacks. Want to preview your email? Tough, because the MicroSoft default is to execute scripts in those preview panels as soon as your new email message arrives.
And then there is rebooting. Oh. My. GOD! Make the slightest change, or heaven forbid, actually add a device, program, or driver, and off you go into the world of rebooting Windows.
MicroSoft is so successful, of course, that it's difficult to gain any traction criticizing them. In my case, I want to see changes that will make the businesses of my clients run smoother, faster, cheaper, more efficient, and safer (and the changes that I ask them for wouldn't exactly hurt my own lifestyle, either). But I haven't made as much money as Gates, so I must not have any credibility on the matter, right?!
The sad thing is that I'm on the same business side as Gates. I don't want to see some new Indian OS, browser, and utilities come out in some unexpected marketing Blitz that wipes out my business before I have even a change to change to compete.
I need MicroSoft to be successful. MicroSoft's flaws are a direct threat to my bottom line, but yet it wouldn't take that much effort on their part to clean up the existing software (changing defaults on ports, for example, isn't asking for the Moon), legacize rather than abandon support of the old tools, and move towards an architecture that doesn't rely upon the ridiculous and completely unneeded Registry and re-booting.
Some of my clients are large, and some are quite small, but none of them are willing to throw out 2 year old PC's, 2 year old proprietary software, and 3 year old OS's just to "upgrade" to a new system that requires proprietary software re-writes, faster PC's, and keeps the hated flaws of the worst of the old products' beahvior (e.g. having to reboot after an installation). None of my clients want to hear that their current OS's and off-the-shelf tools are no longer going to be "supported", even if they would never use the support. This has to do with corporate liability, among other things.
In short, there was a point in time where K-Mart never saw Wal-Mart coming, and I don't want MicroSoft to be so self-absorbed that it drags my firm into a Blue Light Special sale.
Just a few changes. A few tweaks and MSFT can remain dominant for another two decades, but without them...
Who knows.
There have been cases in which people have accidentally used their key to enter and, in some cases, start a car that wasn't theres. Indeed, I've even once accidentally unlocked the wrong car once (same make, model, and color as mine, but it didn't have my stuff in the console); when I noticed my stuff wasn't in the console I figured out it was the wrong car, got out, and used my key to relock it.
If someone is driving a stolen car, odds are a claim that it's "accidental" is apt to be met with some skepticism. If, however, there are facts to back up the claim (e.g. the person in wrongful possession of the car has rightful ownership of a car of the same make, model, color, keying, and interior decoration/contents, and the latter car is in the parking lot from which the wrongfully-possessed car was taken) my impression is that such mistakes do not result in any sort of prosecution.
Everybody cuts support for older OSs. It's a fact of life. If a company offered "infinite support", they'd have to sell the product at a prohibitive price. But let's shed some daylight on your statement.
I've been using Windows2000-Pro, with free security patch support, for 3.5 years. Microsoft has announced that security patch support for Win2000 will end ~2007. That's 7 years of security patch support.
In contrast, RedHat announced that their security patch support for any distribution will end 12 months after release.
As is usually the case, you get what you pay for.
That's correct. But, if the software was left there inadvertantly and isn't being used, it's effectively vacates any accusation of willful violation.
Straw man. You don't know whether the clerical staff even touched the computers. Maybe they were incompetent morons who felt more comfortable with typewriters. Or maybe they installed another word processor (WordPerfect), etc. Or maybe they dual-booted into DOS because they were afraid of Windows. Whatever. It's an unanswerable and unproveable contention on your part.
It's no more or less answerable or proveable than your contention that the violation was willful. If you don't like speculation, that's fine. But, that standard goes both ways: you can't engage in speculation yourself and expect it to be accepted as fact.
It wasn't an attack. I sincerely wanted to determine whether you were under the influence of illegal narcotics at the time you posted.
BS. But, I've given you fair warning: keep it up, and you'll be history.
As long as they choose open-source...
You haven't been paying attention, have you? I regularly recommend proprietary solutions from other vendors to support my specific specialty, because they meet the need better than anything else. My own company sells a significant suite of software that is proprietary.
But, I've also written significant amounts of software that require an open-source program to interpret. It's already installed on most Unix systems, and is readily available (or buildable) for almost any system in widespread use today.
Fair enough, TAASTAAFL.
Linux is user supported. I'm starting to think that it might be worth my time to become a Linux Geek. And that would be hard work in my case.
FReegards, FRiend.
Sorry, I went for the preview button and missed. So, I'll address this last point separately.
If he forgot to pay the electric bill or taxes, he would have received fair warning of his delinquency, rather than someone showing up at the door with guns.
And, your toxic waste example is a strawman, because it requires a willful violation of a law that only a 6-year-old wouldn't know about.
You're willing to bend over backwards for the guy on software. I'm just trying to understand how much idiocy you consider acceptable.
I'd like to see evidence of willful violation, or at least a widespread violation, rather than a few dozen unlicensed ones among hundreds of separate applications, or more than 6 of 72 desktops.
What about you? If you forget to pay your electric bill, is it acceptable for the utility to shut off your power without any prior notice? Do you ever make a mistake? Can you live up to your own standards for perfection?
And, you keep dodging my question: would your company survive a BSA audit without uncovering any violations, inadvertant or otherwise?
$65,000 in fines plus $35,000 in legal fees for a few dozen unused applications on 6 out of 72 PC's is a lot more than "restitution".
Release your anger, Jedi. It only makes me stronger.
Now that's funny. You seem to have more than your share of postings removed by the AM's. I think you are confusing increasing bitterness with strength.
Irrelevant and unprovable supposition.
In places that don't mind software piracy, there will seldom be more than one licensed copy of anything. For places that do mind, there will be pretty close to one license per person. There isn't that huge a middle ground.
One of the big problems is that, in an era where Borland's No-Nonsense License (which debutted with Turbo Pascal 3.0) is more and more necessary, it becomes less and less used.
Essentially, the No Nonsense License states that a piece of software may be used "like a book". Just as one book may be read in many places, so too a piece of software may exist on many machines. On the other hand, just as a book may only be read by one person at a time (unless two people are reading the same page together), so too may software only (legally) be used by one person at a time, unless two people are sharing a computer.
The fact of the matter is that since copyright law and software licenses would be unworkable if enforced literally(*), honest people generally act as though Borland's licensing terms are the ones in effect. This applies not only to computer application software, but also to such things as music. If the software and music industries would recognize this, I think they'd be much more respected.
(*) As a simple example, the copyright statutes explicitly allow only a single backup copy of software to be made under "fair use" statutes. Consequently, anyone who does a full disk backup of their system would be violating copyright if they didn't destroy the old backup copies before producing new ones. Since such a policy would be insane for a number of reasons (not the least of which are (1) the legitimate need for backups from different times, in case it's discovered that a file was corrupted or altered sometime before the last backup; (2) the difficulty, when using many forms of backup media, of expurgating only selected files; (3) the danger of the primary hard drive failing sometime between the destruction of the old one and the successful and complete creation of the new one). Such a policy would thus be insane and unreasonable, and yet it would be precisely what strict copyright compliance would require.If the BSA or RIAA were interested in trying to promote goodwill compliance with copyright, they'd get a lot more respect. Instead, however, they regard as theft behavior which is necessary and proper and thus dilute their legitimate claims of theft.
If you really mean that, then it's time to demonstrate your committment to it. You can start by knocking off your postings like this, this, and this, and this.
When you do so, I'll believe you are sincere. Otherwise, don't waste your breath.
You are changing your story again. You asked:
If he forgot to pay the electric bill, would that be okay?
As I pointed out earlier, he would be given notice if he was delinquent in paying his electric bill. That's not theft, until he refuses to pay the bill.
Ah, so it's not about restitution after all.
Thank you, you have made my point: that the penalties imposed on this business owner were petty and vindictive.
Why? Because you didn't like the answer to the last ones?
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.