Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rockin' on without Microsoft
C/Net ^ | 8/20/2003 | David Becker

Posted on 08/21/2003 7:23:21 AM PDT by justlurking

Rockin' on without Microsoft

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.


TOPICS: Technical
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-346 next last
To: Golden Eagle
But I will never support these sneaky licenses that steal your IP and provide no return revenue to the IT market which I work in.

If you don't want your code to fall under the GPL, then don't use GPL code in your programs. The GNU library license does allow you to dynamically link your programs to GNU software, which is why proprietary software is made for Linux. You seem to think that you can't run commercial software on Linux. Oracle and quite a few other vendors seem to disagree. The GPL will only "steal" your IP if you first "steal" GPL IP. That seems to be a fair trade to me.

61 posted on 08/21/2003 10:51:42 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
But I will never support these sneaky licenses that steal your IP and provide no return revenue to the IT market which I work in.

Open source licenses do not "steal" IP. Some of them require that you contribute your IP if you choose to redistribute your work derived from it. Others don't impose that requirement at all.

However, there is plenty of return revenue to the IT market. A lot of people are earning revenue while supporting and developing open source systems. It isn't large in comparision to the proprietary systems, but it is non-trivial.

I've personally done consulting for companies that use open source systems among the rest of their infrastructure, and wrote (non-GPL'ed) code for them to meet a specific need. It's not yet a large piece of my work, but it has been steadily increasing over the past couple of years.

62 posted on 08/21/2003 10:55:06 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Stop comparing this to criminal law, no crime was comitted here at worst it was a breach of contract which falls under civil law.

In Civil law intent holds much more weight than it does in criminal (which btw has different statutes for Theft and possession of stolen property). In civil law the penelty for breaking a contract is the other parties loss, if we assum on six computers he had an illegal copy of office and a few other apps there is no way MS lost more than 10K per computer.

63 posted on 08/21/2003 10:56:51 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
lol the GPL does not look so bad now eh?
64 posted on 08/21/2003 10:57:31 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
As opposed to a noted monopolist? Also the communist line is pretty sad youre holding him responsable for his fathers views?
65 posted on 08/21/2003 11:01:04 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
You have no clue how GPL works. BTW Apples UNIX base (DARWIN) is under BSD (not quite GPL but in practice close) would you liek to see the code? Apple yet another company that uses open source software yet holds their IP, guess its not quite as viral as you think.

Its funny because Oracle moved off of Solaris as their primary platform and moved to linux yet they still own their IP, BEA provides its own software to Linux and holds its IP. Your argument is weak..

66 posted on 08/21/2003 11:04:33 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Without intent, it isn't theft.

I didn't mean to steal your car. It was purely accidental.
67 posted on 08/21/2003 11:06:11 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Yes, much better to sympathize with Microsoft and their lawyers rather than small business owners who can't afford to defend themselves in court.

Oh, puh-lease. Don't get on your high horse. These "small business owners" rip off countless dollars from the software industry every year. That they can't afford to pay their legal fees is their own fault.
68 posted on 08/21/2003 11:07:18 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Okie, Dokie, you've convinced me - I won't switch to Linux! Would it be all right with you if I switched to

Microsoft Xenix?


69 posted on 08/21/2003 11:07:32 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Go ahead, make my day and re-state the obvious! Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
Also the communist line is pretty sad youre holding him responsable for his fathers views?

He would be really disappointed to find out the truth about Bill Gates' father.

70 posted on 08/21/2003 11:10:11 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I didn't mean to steal your car. It was purely accidental.

Let me give you a hint: when you resort to sarcasm in a lame attempt to avoid the issue, you have effectively admitted that you were wrong.

You may not believe that you are doing so, but that's how everyone else (except your chorus of lackeys) interprets it.

71 posted on 08/21/2003 11:13:24 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
His intentions are irrelevant.

Intentions play a large role in the justice system. What law school did you flunk out of?

72 posted on 08/21/2003 11:28:14 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
You are presuming that the software in question was installed by the OEM.

Doesn't matter. Regardless of how the software was installed, the buyer received a paper license. That license could be an individual license -- or a site license -- but in either case, the buyer has it. If he doesn't, he's violating the conditions of the license.
73 posted on 08/21/2003 11:28:30 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Intentions play a large role in the justice system.

And weighing them is a guessing game: No more scientific than flipping a coin.
74 posted on 08/21/2003 11:29:19 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
that's how everyone else (except your chorus of lackeys) interprets it.

I'm shocked that a bunch of GPL bigots would interpret it that way...
75 posted on 08/21/2003 11:30:29 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
They don't want to know ...

It's just business. Nothing personal..
76 posted on 08/21/2003 11:31:41 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
And weighing them is a guessing game: No more scientific than flipping a coin.

The practice of law is not a science. But reaching a judgment is not equivalent to flipping a coin.

77 posted on 08/21/2003 11:34:09 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
That someone actually paid Microsoft for a license is, of course, irrelevant to you.

You're assuming that somebody "actually paid" -- which is doubtful in this case. Look, if somebody is using your product without paying for it, you have every right to take action against them. You guys like to think that that's un-American. Fine. The last thing this country needs is a lesson in commercial ethics from a bunch of Bolsheviks.
78 posted on 08/21/2003 11:34:32 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
The practice of law is not a science. But reaching a judgment is not equivalent to flipping a coin.

Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhm, rrrrrright. It's about convincing your fellow jurors to find against the guy so you can get home to your beer and La-Z-Boy...
79 posted on 08/21/2003 11:35:23 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Doesn't matter. Regardless of how the software was installed, the buyer received a paper license. That license could be an individual license -- or a site license -- but in either case, the buyer has it. If he doesn't, he's violating the conditions of the license.

OK, now you are changing your story: you claimed that it came with a license from the OEM.

However, while you are correct about the license violation, it still isn't theft. Theft requires intent, and there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, this is a civil matter about violation of contract, not a criminal matter.

Had the business owner been given an opportunity to remedy the problem by removing (or buying a license for) the offending software that was inadvertantly passed on to another user, there wouldn't be an issue. He would probably even still be a Microsoft customer.

However, you do bring up an interesting problem: how many people or businesses could meet those requirements? Would your company survive a BSA audit, with no non-compliant items? If you have site licenses, it certainly makes it easier (but that's financially prohibitive for many small businesses). Are you absolutely sure that no one has installed unlicensed software on any of your PC's, or that the unused ones in the storeroom don't still have old copies of software on them?

Of all the clients that I've worked for, only one had stringent configuration and access controls on their PC's that prevented the installation of any software. The user was restricted from writing files anywhere except in their "home" directory (in Documents and Settings\Username). It was fine in theory, but caused a lot of problems with applications that didn't adhere to that rule.

80 posted on 08/21/2003 11:43:07 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-346 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson