Rockin' on without Microsoft

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Only if you think he believed he had a problem.

Obviously, if the BSA shows up at your door with marshals and requests access, I'd try to put them off, if possible, in order to verify my own compliance. This guy sounds clueless about his own IT org.

As I said, it was speculation. "Permission to enter" and "Involuntary software audit" are contradictory, so it's probably not an issue.

My guess is that the BSA and marshals show up and either (1) ask permission to enter, telling Ball that, if he doesn't, his company will be reduced to a metaphorical ash heap; and he complies, (2) bring a warrant and tell him that he has no choice but to let them in. It's difficult to tell from the article whether (1) or (2) happened; however, I'm inclined to believe that it was (2) because, in my experience, US Marshals don't get involved unless they have a warrant to serve. Also, Ball's comments make it sound like it was involuntary. That could merely be his perception but that's the way it seems.

It appears he he would have cooperated with a voluntary audit, if he had been given the opportunity. But, I don't know if the BSA's process would have done so. Do you?

Not sure.

I wasn't suggesting this for PC purposes I was suggesting it for DEFENSE purposes. So we could in effect ban THEM before they ban US!

CS, there's no need for anyone to get banned. All one has to do is abide by the posting guidelines which are right there under the "post" button (alternating with "Loose lips sink ships"). There's no reason for any "defensive" action if you are doing so.

If you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, ask them to stop. But, be prepared to give them the same consideration you are demanding from them. If they persist, then reporting (or not reporting) the abuse to the moderators is your choice.

Aside from one local Usenet newsgroup that is heavily filtered (no crossposting and pop-up trolls are quickly relegated to the killfile), I stick to moderated forums because I've grown tired of the people that appear to enjoy anonymously stirring up conflict. But, the moderators at FR cannot read every thread, and have to rely on the participants to identify abuse.

I don't worry about the occasional slip or indiscretion (I've even requested that one of my own postings be removed), but habitual abusers become apparent pretty quickly. Most respond to a warning. Others see the writing on the wall as more and more of their postings are deleted. A few have even resorted to harassment via private FRmail, which is truly despicable.

I don't care for political correctness, either. But, indiscriminately accusing other people of committing crimes or engaging in certain sexual acts is not acceptable behavior in a civilized forum, regardless of the level of disagreement.

Dude, I just ejected coffee out of my nose! You owe me a new shirt.

Why are you so surprised? Earlier, you challenged me to provide a single example in which federal officials are permitted to enter your home without a warrant or court order. So far, I've provided two. But, you have yet to answer my challenge.

Somehow, I doubt it.

That's nothing more than your opinion. You asked if I would concede this particular point, and I agreed to do so if you provided information about the BSA's process that leads to an "unannounced software audit".

On the other hand, you won't even concede agreement on points that I basically repeated from your own postings. So, which one of us is being reasonable?

Yes, I believe we would. I know and trust our compliance guy.

I'm glad to hear it. I think my company would survive one, as well. I know I would personally survive one.

Obviously, if the BSA shows up at your door with marshals and requests access, I'd try to put them off, if possible, in order to verify my own compliance. This guy sounds clueless about his own IT org.

Or he just believed they were doing the right thing. It's a small company, and he presumably knows every employee personally. Maybe he delegated that task to someone he trusted. Or maybe he had no IT org at all, and it was being done by his engineering staff in their spare time.

My guess is that the BSA and marshals show up and either (1) ask permission to enter, telling Ball that, if he doesn't, his company will be reduced to a metaphorical ash heap; and he complies, (2) bring a warrant and tell him that he has no choice but to let them in. It's difficult to tell from the article whether (1) or (2) happened; however, I'm inclined to believe that it was (2) because, in my experience, US Marshals don't get involved unless they have a warrant to serve. Also, Ball's comments make it sound like it was involuntary. That could merely be his perception but that's the way it seems.

Well, #1 is a classic Hobson's choice, i.e. no choice at all, or a bad outcome no matter what you do.

But, I do appreciate you softening your declaratory tone and admitting that you really don't know. And, neither do I.

Not sure.

Neither am I. I'm still trying to figure out if the BSA actually has a legitimate process that only escalates to the "unannounced software audit" with gun-toting US Marshals if the target of the investigation is not cooperating. I was hoping that you knew or at least had a source that knew. Perhaps someone will eventually discover this thread and answer the question.

The Linux people have hardly been little angels in these areas themselves. I often find full scale profanity (NOT initialized or mild) in their posts and one even practices symbolic obscenity (using the parentheses and a period to represent the human buttocs) along with the personal attacks that you often complain about so much as well. In fact I was getting ready to call the moderators myself on some of this activity but Bush2000 talked me out of it citing the First Amendment and the Political Correctness aspects of doing such a thing (Ironic isn't it that someone who you are trying to get banned may be responsible for your staying here.) ;-)

As for my (Any Free Software/Open Source Leader) = Karl Marx graphical parody series it is actually in direct response to this Pictorial false accusation of a Microsoft Conspiracy with Darl McBride a few threads back. An accusation for which the Linux People have no real proof!!! by the LINUX PROPONANT TechJunkYard (Once again YOU are the ones who started the false criminal accusations problem here with the unproven "pump 'n' dump" and Microsoft conspiracy theories.)

	Oh, speaking of blowhards... here's one who wants to steal the IP rights of thousands of Linux hackers...
	And here are his friends, Bozo and Bubbles.

There is PLENTY of actual criminal and near criminal activity at Microsoft that you will find proof of here

www.billparish.com

if you want to look at a REAL "pump 'n' dump" in action. This guy isn't even anti M$. He just wants them to clean up their obviously fraudulant stock and stock option issuance practices.

"I'm a commercial software bigot. I don't think it's profitable for our country to give away the fruits of our labors..."

And that gets to the real story here: Presenting Ball as a hero of open source blows away the contention that it's about free-as-in-speech. All Ball cares about is free-as-in-beer, as his own words show: "I'm not paying any per-seat license. I'm not buying any new computers... I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to... If all you need is word processing, that's all you're going to have on your desktop, a word processor... For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do they need a Web browser?"

So in other words, Ball wants people to have as little software as possible, he doesn't want to buy that software, he doesn't buy hardware and he doesn't even spend any money on support contracts. There is in short no cash flowing from Ball into any part of the computing industry. Well, okay, he's got an IT staff, so that's a little bit of money going into the industry I guess... but then again, he claims they have less work to do now, so presumably he'll downsize them sooner or later. That's assuming he doesn't just outsource them to India, since according to Ball, that staff doesn't have to go to people's desks but can work at the server.

By the precise definition of the word, Ball is a parasite. He is the ultimate free rider. And the open-source community chooses to praise him for that.

Imagine a world in which every CEO was like Ball. Just how many software industry jobs would there be then? If someone can describe to me the process by which Ball funds the creation of new software or the maintenance of existing software, I'm all ears. Pressed to explain exactly how an entire industry is supposed to function by giving its product away for free-as-in-beer, the open-sourcers either retreat to vaguely mumbling about support contracts, or they loudly change the subject to free-as-in-speech. This interview with Ball prety much makes a mockery of both those contentions, but nevertheless they hold this guy up as their ideal CEO. I find that very revealing.

Yup. It's that evil big business. We had better break them up and regulate them out of business.

No. It's a big business with the potential for evil just as the United States has a big government with a potential for evil but I would not say that all governments are inherently evil or should be broken up. The concentration of wealth and power can occur within a government, individual, or corporation. The concentration of wealth is not, itself, a problem. The concentration of power, however, can be.

Why do we have checks and balances in government? Because it holds great power and can easily abuse it to the detriment of citizens and their rights. Why does the government regulate large businesses? Because they hold great power and can easily abuse it to the detriment of the citizens and their rights. While liberals are guilty of ignoring abuse through the power of government, I think that many conservatives turn an equally blind eye to abuse through the power of corporations. I honestly don't care where the abuse comes from because the net effect is the same. I believe that the abuse of power is the problem regardless of the source of the abuse.

The excuses that people are making for the BSA sound almost identical to the excuses I've heard from tax collection agencies and other government entities to justify bullying citizens into giving them money. And if people find government abuses of power disturbing, I find it difficult to understand how people don't find abuses of power that they would not accept from a government to be unacceptable for big businesses, as well.

If, for example, the government required defendants in criminal to pay the government's legal costs and used the threat of tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees as a way to bully people into accepting fines that they did not feel they deserved without contest, would you find that acceptable? That is exactly what the BSA is being accused of here.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Maybe he/she brought it to their attention -- and they simply didn't care.

Sure. But that changes the case, doesn't it? In one instance, we have an employer who is aware that they are breaking the law and doesn't care while in the other instance, we have the single employee who should know better keeping his employer in the dark. Without an actual court case, we don't really know. That's why I'm troubled by the BSA's tactics which seem crafted to keep things out of court which means that the innocent get sweeped in with the guilty.

I notified the last company that I worked for about some licensing violations. They said that they'd look into it but, after a few months, they didn't do squat.

Oh, sure. I've seen that happen, too. And employees don't say anything because they'd be hurting their employer -- their bread and butter. I'm not claiming their isn't a problem. I'm claiming that I don't like the BSA's approach.

By the way, not having to push employers to buy licenses is one of the main reasons why I specified Linux for my most recent projects. I can create as many development or deployment servers as I want (OS, database, web server, application server) without having to worry about justifying, purchasing, or tracking licenses. As an added benefit, the platform independent nature of the software I'm using (along with the absence of license fees) has allowed me to deploy the project to a Windows laptop for network-free demos and to a Windows web server that was already in our DMZ.

Obviously, they were granted a court order to search. And in order to get a court order, they had to present probable cause. Again, you lose. There was evidence here. Judges don't just hand out court orders.

Have you read the details of the Steve Jackson Games v. Secret Service? Judges and federal authorities make mistakes. They may very well have had probable but it would be based on the testimony of the ex-employee. That means that this all still comes down to what that ex-employee and employer knew and when and whether the claims of a single disgruntled ex-employee should be sufficient for such action. In the case of a guilty employer, this may seem warranted but what if the employer isn't guilty or made an honest mistake? Rare? Possibly. But our justice system errs on the side of protecting the innocent for a reason.

I'm not bothered by the BSA asking Ball to check his licenses and pay up. I'm bothered by the drastic measure of using a raid and the fact that Ball didn't get a day in court to defend himself because he felt he couldn't afford it and I think it should bother you that the heavy hand of the BSA turned Ball into a poster boy for open source software. Had the BSA handled this differently, Ball would not be using open source software. That's not a loss for the open source community. That's a loss for Microsoft and other commercial software vendors.

No, "they" haven't. But, rather than complain to me that "they are doing it, too", challenge them on it. If you treat other people with respect, you deserve the same.

In fact I was getting ready to call the moderators myself on some of this activity but Bush2000 talked me out of it citing the First Amendment and the Political Correctness aspects of doing such a thing (Ironic isn't it that someone who you are trying to get banned may be responsible for your staying here.) ;-)

If you think I'm out of line, tell me and explain why. I don't think I'm completely without sin, but I make an honest effort to avoid unwarranted personal attacks. If I persist, then report the abuse. I shouldn't expect anything less.

The only people that get banned are those that continue a pattern of abusive behavior, aside from the disrupters that announce their arrival. And even those are sometimes given a (short) opportunity to continue, for the entertainment value.

SCO's insider trading is a matter of public record. There was none at all for about a year, and then suddenly it began, coincident with SCO's legal pursuit of IBM. SCO has claimed they were planned sales, but the plans were apparently made just before SCO announced their intentions to the world. I think that's suspicious.

And, a lot of people are missing what is really going on: the Canopy Group (the largest owner of SCO) has been printing SCO stock at the inflated price to buy at least one other company (Vultus, I believe). Again, I think that's suspicious.

I don't really know where Microsoft fits into all this. SCO had their first profitable quarter in a long time, only because Microsoft gave them a significant sum of money for a "license", just before SCO started their legal pursuit of IBM. However, it wasn't until SCO directly attacked the open source community that I thought it might have been anything more than a defensive move by Microsoft.

Microsoft was recently convicted of monopolistic behavior, so I'm not inclined to believe they have entirely cleaned up their act.

"Washington, DC (05 September 2000) -- The Business Software Alliance (BSA) today announced it conducted an unannounced software audit of Ernie Ball, Inc., a manufacturer of musical instruments and guitar strings located in San Luis Obispo, CA. On August 24, 2000, BSA representatives, accompanied by the US Marshals Service, carried out a court order to audit software published by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Autodesk, Inc., FileMaker, Inc. and Microsoft Corp. installed on Ernie Ball's computers. The legal action began with a call to BSA's anti-piracy hotline 1-888 NO PIRACY. BSA filed a complaint for copyright infringement in federal district court in Los Angeles, and the court ordered the unannounced audit of Ernie Ball's computers. The court also entered a temporary restraining order preventing Ernie Ball from deleting software from its computers. "

Here's another one that describes their usual procedures:

"Washington D.C., (March 5) - The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a watchdog group representing the nation’s leading software manufacturers, today announced that eight California organizations agreed to pay a combined total of more than $512,000 to settle claims relating to unlicensed copies of software programs installed on office computers. In addition to making their respective payments, the organizations have agreed to delete any unlicensed copies, purchase replacement software and strengthen their software management policies. These BSA investigations began with a call to BSA’s hotline, 1-888-NO PIRACY or with a report to its website, www.bsa.org. Typically, after an initial investigation of the lead, the BSA contacts the organization reported, although in some cases it pursues a software raid. "

So there you have it in black and white: Their usual procedure is to contact the company during an investigation. They don't just dial the US Marshals. This information is consistent with what I've been saying on this thread. Just because you buy a piece of software doesn't mean that the BSA and US Marshals can enter your workplace or home. That requires a court order. If you let them in, you have nothing to complain about.

BTW, BSA offers a self-audit tool for monitoring software licensing compliance -- for those whiners who complain that it's too harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd [use whiny voice here].

Funny how you claim to be such a stickler for the rules, unless it comes to Mr. Ball and his illegal copying of software.

My problem with Mr. Ball's experience is not whether he followed the rules. I don't think there is any question that he didn't. What concerns me is how he was treated for what appears to have been an inadvertant error. He should have been given the opportunity to remedy the problem, even if it meant buying licenses for software he wasn't using.

The tactics used against him should have been reserved for people that committed massive and/or willful infringement. The facts don't indicate that he met that criteria.

Your position is completely hypocritical, whether you regard this post as some sort of personal attack or not.

I've resigned myself to the realization that you will twist anything I write (or anything written by someone you don't like) and stretch it to the point that it is barely recognizable, so that you can make some lame accusation.

Aside from the disrupters that quickly get ZOT'ed, people that violate the posting guidelines are given the opportunity to clean up their act. The only ones that are banned are the ones that persist, even after being warned. I agree with this approach, and add another buffer on top of that: I don't report abuse unless the offender ignores my prior warning.

I think that Mr. Ball deserved similar consideration: he should have been warned that he was reported to be non-compliant and given the opportunity to remedy the problem on his own. If he refuses, then a more harsh measure is appropriate.

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.