Any Reason To Buy Microsoft?

zymano writes "This yahoo article says that almost everything enterprises once found unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else -- without some of the baggage that comes with Microsoft purchases, like ongoing security concerns and mystifying licensing practices and that in a recent survey of CIOs, Forrester Research found that about 25 percent of them were already in the process of replacing Windows servers with Linux."

Comments

other people need to buy microsoft

[Brian Boitano]

to give us someone to look down on

One reason:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Re:One reason:

[Anonymous Coward]

eh?

Go ask the guy that replaced some of the servers in one of the branch offices of my company. Guess what I did to him for replacing the mail servers with win2000 because of ease of maintenance. Guess what happened after almost a week of no mail and numerous calls to M$ with "please try rebooting" answers.

Re:One reason:

[debrain]

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Yeah but lots of companies went out of business for doing it (one of my former included) ...

Re:One reason:

[sql*kitten]

Yeah but lots of companies went out of business for doing it (one of my former included)

Companies go out of business for many reasons. Their choice of word processor isn't one of them.

Re:One reason:

[griann]

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Of course this homily was coined in the day when you actually could buy Microsoft Software.

With licensing considerations including non transferability clauses, it's only a matter of time before even upper management or (may the spirits of Turing and von Neumann forgive me) the board of directors reviews an annual report and notices that the value spent of "purchasing" software does not appear on the asset register or depreciated assets.

I predict that someone will turn to the financial controller and say something along the lines of:

"So. Let me get this straight. We spent $150,000 this year buying office software and we don't own it?"

caveat IANAA (I am not an accountant).

Re:One reason:

[debrain]

Companies go out of business for many reasons. Their choice of word processor isn't one of them.

A company's choice of server OS, web server, and database may, in my experience, significantly contribute to their untimely demise.

To follow this thread, up to your argument:
1. (original thread) Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft.
2. (my reply) Companies have gone bankrupt for buying Microsoft.
3. (your reply) Companies don't go bankrupt for buying MS Word.

Do you not see any logical fallacy here? That being, your implication that the only software Microsoft offers that may possibly contribute to a company's demise is the choise of word processor. This is most certainly not the case.

What's more, your assertion that MS Word would not contribute to a company's demise is unsatisfied; I find it fairly likely that MS Word would cost more than any other word processing solution given the plethora of bugs, crashes, worms and viri targeting it. In a competitive scenario, a company not hindered by these costs would have a strategic, and hence competitive, advantage over one that is, and hence have greater survivability. Most (All?) Federal Banks use Lotus Notes for a damned fine reason (it's not a big target).

Cheers.

Re:One reason:

[neuroticia]

Err. That seems more like a story of professional incompetence than it does of crap software. MS software (aside from putting their settings in half a freaking million places) is fairly easy to use when you know which buttons to press. It's just a bad idea for other reasons. Take your "points" where you can score them, and don't try to bash every single aspect of MS--it just makes you seem like a lunatic zealot, and makes people less likely to believe anything positive about whatever platform you do advocate.

The proper way of going about it is to say "yeah, MS software does some cool stuff, and has some cool features. BUT it's unstable and insecure--and those are the two primary concerns when you're running a server." That's something people can't really argue with (although they try. ;) ) and it makes them think rather than chalking you up as a nutcase dirty-hippie Linux/BSD/OS X freak.

It also gives you more weight in the tech world. I mean. "Moron A can't set up a Windows server and make it work" isn't really a news-breaking story. I mean. Moron A probably can't set up any other server and have it work, either. In fact, Moron A probably can't tie his shoes or walk in a straight line--that doesn't mean the shoes he's wearing are a bad product, it merely means he's an idiot. The shoes might be a bad product in ADDITION to his being an idiot, but.. Err. It's much more impressive when someone who's bright and intelligent and wonderful can't set up the OS. Really.

-Sara

Re:One reason:

[deranged unix nut]

Interesting story: A company I work for runs usability tests on Microsoft software. These usability guys have watched Windows Server Administrators with very little experience set up a DHCP server in less than 15 minutes, and almost nobody fails to complete this task when given an hour to work on it. Even novice unix admins can set up a windows DHCP server in under an hour.

Then, they decides to try the same thing with Linux, putting users in groups, with internet access, and after more than a day's worth of man-hours (and several real hours) most of the groups still hadn't been able to configure a linux box to be a functioning DHCP server.

With the 10 hours I'm paying the linux admin to figure out how to do it in linux, I could have paid my Windows Admin to configure DHCP on a Windows box while saving enough money in time to pay for the copy of Windows too!

Re:One reason:

[soloport]

You didn't really expect a Windows Sys. Ad. to be able to configure a Unix system, did you? When your IBM PC (compatible) breaks, do you take it back to Apple for repair?

Look, a PC may look like a Mac, in a way -- it has a Hard Drive and Memory, requires a monitor, keyboard and mouse. But, do you know that they are really two very different systems? They use entirely different CPU's, for one thing (that's short for Central Processing Unit -- the thing that is central to all the work your PC or Mac does).

I understand your confusion on the OS side, as well (that stands for Operating System -- central to all the software programs that run on your PC or Mac). You see the Windows platform is a whole other animal compared to a Unix system. The architectures are vastly different.

Bottom line: If you had matched a Unix or Linux Sys. Ad. against a Windows Sys. Ad., you probably world have still come out slightly ahead on the Windos side -- to begin with. However, over time, your Windows Sys. Ads. would be working more hours per box than your Unix Sys. Ad.

I know this to be true because I employ both kinds of Sys. Ads. ;-) And the fact is, for every Unix (or Linux) Sys. Ad., I have to hire about three Windows Sys. Ads. to keep the workload managed evenly. (Thank goodness there are more Windows Sys. Ads. to employ.)

We have Unix systems that have been running for more than three years without a re-boot; Linux systems with an average up-time of more than a year; Windows systems that must be re-booted nearly every week.

Our patch-cycle for Windows is at least weekly; Our patch-cycle for Linux is, on average, monthly; I can't think of when we've had to patch our Unix systems. The Unix/Linux systems do all the "heavy lifting". Windows is used only when a software vendor supports that platform, exclusively. (Are you listenning, software vendors?!)

By the way, we serve financial institutions (e.g. Wells Fargo), CPA offices and a variety of other types of businesses -- quite a mix, actually. We see the trends, first hand, in our little circle of clients and they aren't headded in the Redmond direction. I'm constantly surprised at how tech-savy clients can be, these days.

Another surprise: Unit cost isn't ever the issue! What my clients want are servers, hidden away, quietly doing their job without having to be mucked with. They will pay more for that!

There's a big wide world of alternatives out there that offers exciting new prospects. One only needs to look to discover.

Re:One reason:

[G27 Radio]

Sorry, but I'm pretty skeptical about your story. Mostly because that type of usability test would be a complete waste of time and money since it completely ignores major factors.

For one thing, I haven't met a Linux (or *BSD) admin that wasn't proficient with Windows as well. By proficient, I don't necessarily mean a proficient Windows admin, but proficient in using Windows.

Now, take your average "Windows Server Administrator"--most have no experience with other operating systems. For the most part, novice MCSA's are one-trick ponies that only know how to do things within their niche.

It's easy to see why a Linux admin would perform better in a Windows environment than an MS admin would in any non-Windows evironment.

The first time I set up DHCP in Linux it took me about 20 minutes including download and compile time. I could probably do it in less than 10 minutes now that I've already done it a couple times.

I've never set up a DHCP server in Windows, but I have needed to make configuration changes to one that was already set up. I can see why you chose MS DHCP for your example. It's pretty intuitive to use, and would be pretty easy for anyone to use that understands DHCP.

Still, having used both, I much prefer the Linux configuration. In Windows, you have the little tree on the left with expandable branches and the objects on the right. It only takes 4 or 5 clicks to get just about anywhere. In Linux it's a single text file with comments and examples interspersed. If you know how to use a text editor it's pretty simple. In fact, it's easier than clicking around a bunch of eye candy, just not as sexy looking. But it's a DHCP server so who cares if it looks sexy?

Your last line is completely ridiculous. It's not going to take any Linux admin 10 hours to set up DHCP. Get a grip.

Re:One reason:

[bluGill]

Ahh, but did they do it RIGHT? Now did they do it right by design, or accident? Do they even know the difference? Novice admins should never be left loose on a production network. Therefore you choice of target users is incorrect and any results you draw from them are inapplicable. Your target users for configuring DHCP are expirenced admins, who mostly have done it before on this server and need to update something. I don't want a novice messing with my dhcp server configuration, I want one of the few guys I work with who know our particular network's configuration.

DHCP is simple at first, it didn't take me an hour to set it up at my home. (I don't count time to download and install, since I just did "cd /usr/ports/network/ ; ls *dhcp* ; cd dhcp-foo, make install, and then went to lunch) I'm sure I could have done my simple home network in less time in windows. I don't think I could have done a complex corporate network in that time. In the real world you have to enter each non-dhcp configed machine manually (and we had plenty of them).

I should also point out that in my hour of configuring dhcp I saw lots of options that I could provide. How many of them could have dhcp return which font server to use, just to point out one? (Note, picked because it is X11 specific and therefore windows only sites don't need it) I doupt windows provides that option easially.

And DHCP is simple to configure compared to some things I've worked with.

Start picking the right users for your focus group and I'll pay more attention to your results.

Re:One reason:

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Frankly, when I hire a Windows or a Unix sysadmin, I ask if they have done it before.

Asking someone to do something new cold SHOULD take 10 hours. And double that to test.

That said, I spent a total of 10 minutes configuring my first Linux dhcp server.

rpm -ivh dhcp-2.0.i386.rpm

man dhcp

pico /etc/dhcpd.conf

/etc/rc.d/init.d/dhcpd start

I did this back in 1998. Since then we've gone from the NT 3.5 interface to the NT 4.0 interface, to the MMC, and now whatever monstrosity they call the thingy under XP.

Under linux, the text file is still in the same place. In fact, it's still largely in the same format.

And also, my experience setting up DHCP for my apartment did a lot more to prepare me for my present 200 node network than a point and drool interface ever would.

Re:One reason:

[_Bucktooth_]

Wow! This is such a weird story! Totally against what I experienced.

I'm no linux admin but I had to configure DHCP on linux (among other things) for my very small office because no-one else could.

I don't have a stopwatch, but using the documentation, I set it all up in what must have been less than 30 minutes. Maybe it's because I actually RTFM.

It's true I figured it out faster with Windows and I didn't have to read any documentation, but our office got really fed-up with the instability. Monthly crashes were the norm. I set up our little linux server 14 months ago, and rebooted only once, in January, because I installed a new hard disk.

MS consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two reasons we're staying with MS. First off is the consistency across the board. It's not just a glib overgeneralisation to say that it helps admin, and from what I've seen of OSX server it has much the same advantages. To Admin one system is to admin another. To update, run, install and fix a service is consistent, and the need to retrain when a service is added just isn't there. We DO use Linux and BSD in some of our systems, and while the people exist who can administer those, the configuration for say, Apache, is wildly different to just about anything else, and anything else from each other. Just an observation.

The 2nd point is support. It's impeccable, and having guaranteed 24-hour help for those times when things foo bar up so badly we can't repair things is essential to running a service for our clients.

Those are two features of "going MS" that are important to us. Some people will not find they need both, or even either. I won't comment on their business practices, but suffice it to say that's their choice.

Re:MS consistency

[Realistic_Dragon]

"The 2nd point is support. It's impeccable, and having guaranteed 24-hour help for those times when things foo bar up so badly we can't repair things is essential to running a service for our clients."

Yes, but who supplies your support? If it was Microsoft there would be no market for the likes of CSC and EDS who make a fortune out of support contracts because Microsoft support is not adequate.

If you have to pay someone for 24x7 support you may as well pay them for support no a reliable platform that is far better suited for 24x7 operations.

The fact that OSS has worse support is a myth - OSS comes with a good developer base that you (or your support contractor) can tap into, and Windows comes with the somewhat inferior MSDN _and that's about it_. Everything else you have to pay for one way or another.

Re:MS consistency

[phaze3000]

Yes, the configuration of Apache is quite different to many other programs ('wildly different' is somewhat over the top - at heart, configuring almost all Unix programs invloves editing text files).

But is the configuration process for IIS really that similar to Exchange? Not really - they're very different tasks, so in many ways this isn't really surprising.

As for support, IBM and many others will be happy to offer 24-hour help at the right-price - Free software might not cost anything to get, but it's certainly not free to run. Of course, you don't get 24-hour help for Windows by default either.

The major difference between Microsoft solutions and Open Source solutions is in terms of flexibility - instead of getting a 'black box' which you can do little to change, you can adapt the software to your business. There's no way Microsoft can compete with this under the terms of their current licensing, and ultimately this is why Open Souce software will come to dominate computing.

Re:MS consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the unix configuration far more logical than that in Windows.

Finding a Windows setting is, to me, like looking for a needle in a haystack. Webserver settings may be spread across a dozen modules in various parts of the OS

For apache, it's almost all in httpd.conf (or your local flavours version).

That theme is spread across the entirety of Windows. It's like options are sprayed around the OS like dogshit. Text files in UNIX systems are generally local to their own area, and that makes more sense to me.

Re:MS consistency

[g4dget]

First off is the consistency across the board.

Yes, Microsoft gives you consistently gray-and-blue dialog boxes. Lots of them. You can click around in them for hours trying to get anything done. But it's consistent.

and while the people exist who can administer those, the configuration for say, Apache, is wildly different to just about anything else, and anything else from each other. Just an observation.

And you think that the configuration of different Windows utilities is consistent just because you see them all through dialog boxes? Underneath that "consistent" veneer of Windows is the same variety of configuration semantics as exists for Linux. But, hey, it appears consistent.

The 2nd point is support. It's impeccable, and having guaranteed 24-hour help for those times when things foo bar up so badly we can't repair things is essential to running a service for our clients.

Support costs money. If you pay enough for Windows support, you get "impeccable" Windows support. If you pay enough for Linux support, you get "impeccable" Linux support. However, if you are any reasonably sized business, you are big enough to have enough Linux expertise in-house so that you don't need any outside support.

I won't comment on their business practices, but suffice it to say that's their choice.

I won't comment on your business practices. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of companies like yours that have way too much money and don't know what they are doing.

Re:MS consistency

[timotten]

I'll bite! :)

To update, run, install and fix a service is consistent ... the configuration for say, Apache, is wildly different to just about anything else, and anything else from each other.

That's an illusion. A good deployment requires a firm understanding of what is being deployed, and that requires the same amount of work for Apache or IIS. Your employee just feels more secure about configuring IIS with a GUI because it seems to require less creative input, and it allows him to deflect creative mistakes onto Microsoft rather than accept them himself.

Re:MS consistency

[JohnFluxx]

This reminds me of databases.

When I started off in the database field, I developed a few databases for about 4-5 companies, using MS-Access. It was all gui, click and play..

Then I went to university, and learnt database theory, and use oracle. At first I thought it was a step back, since it wasn't as easy any more to produce a database. Then I realised that far more of the effort goes into designing the database than implementing it, and that the GUI almost discourages designing first.

Yep buy Microsoft!

[bazik]

Yes, buy their products to support them. Where else can you get such decent mice?

Re:Yep buy Microsoft!

[kien]

Where else can you get such decent mice?

And keyboards! Until recently, I had always used Microsoft mice but that IBM optical mouse (with the blue wheel) finally won me over.
Come to think of it, Microsoft releases some damn fun games too. I can't wait until they realize that they should start porting them to *nix to prop up their profits.

--K.

Re:Yep buy Microsoft!

[bazik]

I dont like wireless mice that much. The cord saved mine from smashing on the floor hundred times ;)

67.123% of statictics are made up on the spot

[Michael's a Jerk!]

xxx% are planning to upgrade to linux anytime soon

This should be taken with a grain of salt. 'Planning' and doing are 2 entirely seperate things. The fact is, (ans I'm going to be modded down by the linux crowd) is that windows is cheap. Why?

You don't have to train your users over again. You don't need expensive unix/linux admins (MCSE's are a dime a dozen - and most are good, too. Don't let elitism clud your jusgement). More software works on windows (WINE is not always the answer).

Linux is nice, but it isn't ready for the desktop quite yet.

Obligatory Bad Joke

[AtomicX]

Bill: Our market share is falling, what can we do? Ballmer: [Sweating]Improve our products?[Still Sweating] Bill: Don't be ridiculous, if Windows was secure then we wouldn't be able to charge for bug fixes, [not that our software is buggy of course] Ballmer: [Shirt now navy blue]We could take the old standby[Shirt now very dark navy blue] Bill: Aha - [to voice activated Windows box]Bring in the lawyers![Windows BSODs] [To voice activated Linux box] Bring in the lawyers! [Lawyers arrive] Bill: I want Linux to be made illegal Ballmer: [Shirt now dissolving in acidic sweat] Developers! Developers! Developers! Bill: Not now Steve! Lawyers: This will cost you Bill, bribery is very expensive these days. Bill: Nah! - I ran an audit check on the US govt. they haven't complied with the MS Windows Server 2003 EULA clause 0203432448 (You hereby agree that All your base are belong to MS) Lawyers: It shall be done oh fabulously wealthy one! [US Govt. declares Finland a terrorist state, wages violent war, Linus Torvolds writes a quick kernel update then goes into hiding] ... to be continued.

Re:Obligatory Bad Joke

[AtomicX]

^^ forgot to format it - double posting is a /. tradition anyway.

Bill: Our market share is falling, what can we do?

Ballmer: [Sweating]Improve our products?[Still Sweating]

Bill: Don't be ridiculous, if Windows was secure then we wouldn't be able to charge for bug fixes, [not that our software is buggy of course]

Ballmer: [Shirt now navy blue]We could take the old standby[Shirt now very dark navy blue]

Bill: Aha - [to voice activated Windows box]Bring in the lawyers![Windows BSODs] [To voice activated Linux box] Bring in the lawyers!

[Lawyers arrive]

Bill: I want Linux to be made illegal

Ballmer: [Shirt now dissolving in acidic sweat] Developers! Developers! Developers!

Bill: Not now Steve!

Lawyers: This will cost you Bill, bribery is very expensive these days.

Bill: Nah! - I ran an audit check on the US govt. they haven't complied with the MS Windows Server 2003 EULA clause 0203432448 (You hereby agree that All your base are belong to MS)

Lawyers: It shall be done oh fabulously wealthy one!

[US Govt. declares Finland a terrorist state, wages violent war, Linus Torvolds writes a quick kernel update then goes into hiding] ... to be continued.

Re:Really? Check this (plz don't mod down)

[dipipanone]

This isn't my experience at all. I maintain two servers. One is a Windows 2000 server, the other runs the standard RedHat offering (not the enterprise version.)

The Redhat server just works. I never have any downtime, it's never crashed, I've never lost any data -- the thing just sits there, ticking away in the background, doing what it's supposed to do.

The Win2k server, in contrast, is a continuous pain in the arse. Administration isn't at all transparent -- you fill in a few tick boxes, and pray that it's going to do what the manual says it will do. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes things just stop working, with no apparent reason. (File replication was the last thing that just 'broke'.)

With regard to the learning curve, I found that it was slightly more difficult at the beginning for Linux, but once I'd grasped the basic concepts, they pretty well applied everywhere. This isn't true for Windows 2000.

The last big problem is interoperability. With the linux server, connectivity just works. With the Windows server, it's forever disappearing from view.

Both OSes do have certain strengths and weaknesses, but I don't see that Windows has any advantage in either stability or ease of maintenance.

Survey size?

[Anonymous Coward]

We polled 4 CIOs and 1 of them said they're replacing Microsoft with Linux.

I always love when they quote figures from a survey that was conducted, but don't give any details such as size or region (US only or world wide?).

All in One.

[SharpFang]

If you buy Microsoft products, you get all that stuff connected, i.e. buying Microsoft hardware you are sure it will be supported flawlessly by Microsoft software.

And now I wonder if I get modded down for this as Troll or up as Funny :P

Re:All in One.

[KingRamsis]

supported flawlessly by Microsoft software.

And now I wonder if I get modded down for this as Troll or up as Funny :P

how about getting modded imaginary:-2 .

Re:All in One.

[commodoresloat]

I thought that's what everybody said about Apple?

Re:All in One.

[Blob Pet]

imaginary:-2

You mean imaginary:i right?

Why buy Microsoft ?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

One reason :

unmount /dev/hdd /cdrom

I love everything Linux, but seriously, what will my secretary do when her CD is stuck in the drive despite hitting the eject button furiously, and she doesn't know how to get it out ? And yes, I know you can learn Linux and it's not that hard and yada yada, but she's already taken months to leave her typewritter and get going under Windows. You think my secretary is an old thing from another generation that has become rare ? think again.

So, yeepee-doo for Linux, let Linux take over the world, but please leave my secretary under Windows so she can do her work.

Re:Why buy Microsoft ?

[panurge]

Buy the poor woman a Mac. You know it makes sense. My wife runs an all-woman business, the office is full of Macs (Linux servers) and, you know what? Support is virtually nil. When she had PCs, we had constant training issues. I don't fully understand it myself, it just seems to happen.

Re:Why buy Microsoft ?

[Narcissus]

It cracks me up when I read people complaining about mounting and unmounting disks. I haven't had to do any of this for a very long time: the last few Mandrake installs (at least!) came with automount or supermount or whatever it's called, and it just works.

And don't think that the disk won't get "stuck" in Windows: it just means that the only alternative is to reboot the machine to unstick it, not type a oneliner into a command line. Just make a link to a shell script, and everyone should be happy.

Re:Why buy Microsoft ?

[tortap-0]

"unmount /dev/hdd /cdrom"

Oh, so your "secretary" would have problems with Linux... Right.

Hee hee, looks more like _you_ couldn't figure it out. With the cdrom in fstab you would just need /cdrom not the dev-part and btw, the command is 'umount' :P

Human Resources

[locarecords.com]

Regardless of the wishes of the open source community to write off Microsoft, it is one thing having every part of their product range being available and usable o/s... it is quite another to have the status and prestige of a multinational to implement them.

Corporate buyers and technologists are notoriously conservative and things like long term longevity of the company, market capitalisation, project history, locked in technologies and pure tradition (ie we have always bought from Microsoft) have a massive impact on buying decisions.

As someone once remarked to me, "No-one gets sacked for buying Microsoft software"...

So I think they'll be around mighty longer than anyone anticipates (providing they don't make a huge technological miscalculation). And judging by their past aggressiveness and competitiveness I would say they can't be written off yet.

When pricing a firm there is much much more to it than saying that someone else sells everything they do.

Re:Well..

[dipipanone]

And secondly, if you did, you would have to get rid of monkeyboy somehow.

Oooh. Can we make him dance until his heart explodes? Please? Pretty please?

I can think of one reason...

[marsonist]

Clippit, the cute and loveable Office assistant. Let's see Linux' answer to that.

Re:I can think of one reason...

[nitehorse]

First off, his name is Clippy. Clippy is the DEVIL.

Second off, of course we have an answer to that. We've combined our most evil text editor (vi) with an annoying assistant... BEHOLD! VIGOR!

Yeah, it's evil. Yes. Evil. /me cries in the corner.

Re:I can think of one reason...

[NineBall]

"Let's see Linux' answer to that."
My money's on Tux telling people to RTFM.

Running proprietary inhouse apps

[Billly Gates]

Thank Microsoft for inventing the idea of Visual Basic and obstructions to the c++ standard that make it difficult if not impossible to port apps. This was done on purpose to force bussinesses to be dependant on Windows. Fact of the matter is during the 90's they viewed Microsoft as the good guys needed to set standards. Now its payback.

I remember the old saying "Don't code it include it!". The point is that your apps are really just wrappers for some ms specific code.

If it took 30 years to replace cobal/IBM 370 code then it will take 30 years to get the com/.net/Windows back out again. I predict Windows to be used for 30 or 40 years thanks to the proprietariness of the whole environment.

Also look at prepackaged software. Its all Windows based. Peoplesoft, great plains accounting, autocad, etc.

Sadly many companies today are ready to jump on the .net train even though they are critizing Microsoft's licensing practices. They will surely be locked in. Infact according to the Gartner group %50 of all companies are looking at .net migration! They just do not get it. Today its mostly Unix based but they are afraid that java might die under the almighty Microsoft view .net as a safe way to avoid risk managment.

On another note Microsoft does make the best Office suites around. Not to mention I found no ide that approaches VC++. Vi is cool as a great text editor for many different langauges but it does not have autoword completion, autoclass completetion, class browsing extra that VC++ has. Kdevelop sucks goatballs and only eclipse is close. Unfortunatly its for java development.

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[Kumkwat]

Actually .NET is where I think Microsoft is going right for once. For the first time we have a truely open standard (ECMA standardized), well the CLR parts of it, which people can develop for. You won't find their Windowing code in their or ASP.NET but these are the area's that are going to generate revenue for MS. There are now ports for FreeBSD, MacOSX and the Mono guys are working a version for Linux. True platform cross compatibility, plus a typed runtime that was actually designed to provide support for somewhat seemless byte code compilation from multiple languages. Unlike the JVM which really was designed for Java only to run on different platforms.

I've been workin on .NET for a few yrs now, actually with the open source release Rotor designing a functional langauge and have found it rather a joy to use. Plus MS Research is now supporting quite a few research oriented open source initiatives that will hopefully provide rather novel enhancements in the coming years.

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[bazik]

>> I remember the old saying "Don't code it include it!". Wasnt it: "Hey it compiles! Ship it!" ? :)

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[sohp]

''Unfortunatly its (sic) for java development''.

Not true. Eclipse itself is a development tool platform, it just happens that Java is the first and most widely know language. There's a C/C++ toolkit now, though, see the CDT. There's also an effort to develop a COBOL IDE!

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[fongsaiyuk]

Also look at prepackaged software. Its all Windows based. Peoplesoft, great plains accounting, autocad, etc

Techincally, w.r.t. PeopleSoft, this statement isn't exactly true:

PeopleSoft Jumps on Linux Bandwagon

Announcements of this type are actually very big news for the business world, IMO. The biggest core application for a non-technology company, ie. Manufacturing, is it's ERP system's. Sure, Cisco can switch all desktop development off of Un*x to Linux because of the similar environment.

ERP systems moving to run wholly on Linux can be a very big insentive for bigger businesses to roll out Linux beyond simple Web servers...

The next hurdle will be trying to migrate the 100's and 1000's of little Excel spreadsheet applications over to OpenOffice/StarOffice. That is where some of the larger costs will be: training and user familiarity.

But I don't really care about that part yet. IMO, a businesses application development and ERP systems should all be running on Linux. All the front end applications that the non-IT people write can exists on MS-Office products.

Well, until OpenOffice familiarity and adoption occurs...

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[the eric conspiracy]

only eclipse is close

Eclipse is better and can be used to develop in langauges other than Java. I've used it for Java, C, PHP and Perl.

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[evilpenguin]

Sadly many companies today are ready to jump on the .net train even though they are critizing Microsoft's licensing practices. They will surely be locked in. Infact according to the Gartner group %50 of all companies are looking at .net migration! They just do not get it. Today its mostly Unix based but they are afraid that java might die under the almighty Microsoft view .net as a safe way to avoid risk managment.

First, let me let you know my prejudices. I am a Linux advocate. I like Linux. I've developed software for Unix systems professionally for 14 years now. I have also become a Free Software advocate. This took a fair amount of time. I thought the right way to make money with software was to keep it closed and secret. I now think this is the right way for a small number of investors to make the largest possible amount of money out of skilled people who are not so well compensated. In a Free Software economy, programmers become like lawyers, doctors, and architects: professionals compensated for the quality of their practice.

So much for background. Even as an advocate, I think we must recognize the validty of the argument quoted above. When you have choices between propretary platforms, you must manage the risk. You must try to choose the winner. And it is difficult to find a market Microsoft has chosen to move into where it has not become the winner (most often by leveraging their OS monopoly, but we've had that fight already).

The only products that have gained ground against Microsoft in a market Microsoft dominates are Free Software products. Why? The corollary to the above argument. Microsoft can't destroy a Free product. Sun should GPL or BSD license their Java VM and SDK as soon as possible (given my view, I'd prefer the GPL, but I would welcome any license that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines). They should invite public development. I think everyone in the open deveopment community would welcome their sitting as benevolent dictator over the project, a la Thorvalds, and it would guarantee that whatever happened to Sun, Java would go on.

Sure, businesses are careful, and belief in the Free Software model is ony slowly winning acceptance (with Linux, Apache, and Samba leading that), but one of the reasons people accept those products is the confidence in knowing those projects will go on. No risk of vendor disappearence. Sun's best bet to keep Java in front and on top is to open it up. They already give it away, now they need to let go.

As for the general topic of Microsoft vs. Free, obviously I believe Free can do the job and will eventually (I think) completely replace all closed commodity market niches, leaving only specialty vertical markets as potential closed markets. But this will take quite a while. It will take a generation or two, simply because the generation of programmers raised on Free Software has to become the generation of technical people making the decisions. People do not make choices on a rational basis, they rationalize their prejudices. They come up with evidence for what they already believe (me too -- objectivity is extremely difficult to attain) and reject evidence to the contrary.

Money is the thing that drives what little rationality there is in this debate.

One of the reasons I think the Free Software will ultimately win is simply that Free Software is always free, whereas Microsoft gets its developer mindshare on the pusher model (first few hits are free). Universities and Technical Colleges are using and teaching with Free Software more and more. The current high price of Linux people is due to the last decade of Microsoft pushing. The people who know *nix are the older, more experienced folks -- the more expensive folks. But the next generation is going to have broader background and skills. The cheap folks will know *nix AND Windows.

Those who accuse the Free Software camp of

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[Mr. Piddle]

True platform cross compatibility...

Please don't fall for the Microsoft marketing department this time around. The ECMA standardization is not sufficient, because vast .NET APIs are still proprietary to Microsoft. The ports to FreeBSD, Mac OS, and Linux are tokens, because they will forever be incomplete relative to the native Windows version.

People who will want to do anything meaningful with .NET are still locked into Microsoft and their Windows platform. Why would Microsoft allow anything else when Windows provides nearly half of their revenue? They are in a clear position of financial conflict of interest with respect to .NET on non-Windows platforms.

What other incentives would they have to allow
other companies to produce .NET compliant implementations? J2EE, for example, is implemented by IBM and BEA, whose market shares dwarf that of Sun's own implementation. Microsoft would never allow themselves to be nothing other than #1. Their corporate culture and growth-oriented stock model wouldn't allow it.

Does Microsoft have a test suite for full .NET compliance available to anyone who wants to license it? J2EE does, which leads to third-parties, such as BEA, IBM, Silverstream, Macromedia, etc., battling it out for market share. If one J2EE company kicks the bucket, there is a way out. It isn't monkey-trivial to move to a new J2EE app server (they are complex), but it is absolutely 100% possible.

Re:Running proprietary inhouse apps

[Billly Gates]

Yes but do I have autoword completition, class browsing, auto class completetion, and docs?

CDT just has syntax highlighting for some keywords and thats it. You can't even compile with it. This is something I can do with the Unix version of gVIM by running :make projectname.cpp.

It is a java ide for the time being untill CDT improves.

Oh come off it.

[Lochin Rabbar]

What possible reason could there be for a technophobic secretary to need to mount a CD in the works machine. If she's not capable of coming to terms with the mount command then she shouldn't be installing software.

Interesting developments at IBM maincampus...

[Thaidog]

I'm an analyst for IBM Global sevices and I work out of the RTP main campus site... A few weeks ago on break, I decided to take a walk around the hardware labs, and to my suprirse I found about 10 new Mac OS X workstations being configured... I talked with one of the techs who said they were using them because they are unix and therefore can run many of the apps they use right out of the box... I asked them if it had anything to do with the 970 development and he said he could not commment... It was ironic to say the least to see that the computers in the lab that actually had the *most* IBM hardware in it (logicboard, harddrive, cpus) had an apple logo on the front... Who needs micosoft? Obviously not us...

Re:Really? Check this (plz don't mod down)

[gilesjuk]

Which is why RedHat is Oracle's choice of a database OS.

Linux covers a wide variety of distributions, you can't tell me that Debian or Slackware aren't stable reliable Linux distros.

What's all this maintainence you are referring to? sounds like biased FUD to me.

Re:Really? Check this (plz don't mod down)

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't interesting. See here and here for two more instances of this wrong and redundant troll comment.

Linux is not a threat...

[Thanatiel]

People usually needs a (strong) motivation to move, even if it leads to a better state.
Linux is not a threat to Windows. The general behaviour of MS against it's custommers is.

Facts: (AFAIK)

_ Windows XP has been out for a while now.
_ With such an amount of time, there likely more hardware update needed (and applied) for a lot of computers.
_ A set of 3 changes triggers the mandatory registration process.

_ To have a locked computer on sunday morning because you just installed a RAM upgrade is really a pain. (*)
_ To have a very unpleasant MS guy on the phone Monday morning really improves your general bad feeling about MS and Windows. (**)

I know a few people who experienced that kind of story those last six months. Most were MS tolerant. Some are now planning to give a try to a Linux distribution (SuSE).

Since this kind of trouble is going to happen more and more, I think that MS is more a threat to itself than Linux.

(*) real story
(**) part 2 of the real story

Re:Linux is not a threat...

[TummyX]

_ To have a locked computer on sunday morning because you just installed a RAM upgrade is really a pain. (*)


Hmm. The activation centres here in NZ are automated (unless you've changed too much hardware). I had managed to activate at 3am in the morning.


_ To have a very unpleasant MS guy on the phone Monday morning really improves your general bad feeling about MS and Windows. (**)


Yes. I was unfortunate enough to have to need to talk to a human operator once. They're suspicious and treat you as *guilty* until you prove otherwise. I had a most unpleasent conversation with one of their operators. I tried explaining to them that I was reinstalling XP cause I had just upgraded my motherboard and cpu. They treated me like an idiot and asked me if I was sure that I wasn't installing it on a second machine. When I said "yes", there was a pause (obviously they were looking at the hardware ID changes) and they said "are you sure?".

It wasn't until I got very pissed off with them that they let me activate.

Not a very nice way to treat your customers.

Re:Linux is not a threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, the activation centers here in the US are automated, also. But...

My company standardized on Office 2000 and upgraded all our machines from Office 97. The first few installs went flawlessly. We have an "always on" shared internet connection. The first few installs of Office 2000 hooked up, automagically registered and ran. Then, just about the time M$ released Office XP (odd timing that, eh? and less than 3 mos after we made major purchases to upgrade all of our systems to O2K), brand-new, just-out-of-the-box Office 2000 installs would NOT register automagically. I also could NOT use their Web-site based registration. No, the only way I could get registration numbers was to phone in and request one from a real person, a process that always takes at least 1/2 hour to an hour.

During upgrades to systems, I noticed that, even tho M$ says you should have the first 1 or 2 re-registrations automatically thru the Internet, I have always had to call starting with the 2nd activation!

This is an easy way for M$ to force product obsolescence. They make enough of a PITA that you upgrade just so you don't have to waste an hour on the phone every time you upgrade or replace major components in a system.

After about the 4th time, I located a pirated copy of their corporate version that did not require activation. We still have valid Office licenses and I have maintained enough documentation to survive an M$ audit.

We are legal, valid Office users but we were forced to locate a pirated copy of Office software in order to reduce the hassle associated with their (supposedly) anti-piracy measures.

As you said: not a very nice way to treat your customers.

Not heard of automount then?

[gilesjuk]

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Automount.html

Proprietary Corporate Client Apps

[evil_roy]

Reasons MS works in corporate environments:

1. Pre-trained user base = nil training cost for MS Office users

2. So many corporate apps that can be run on a variety of databases/servers, yet demand MS desktop OS's for their client app that is required. Many of these setups have no intention of moving to anything other than windows for the client side of things.

Clippy and Bob

[KoolDude]

...unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else

How about Clippy and Bob ? Unique to Microsoft ? Yes, of course. Replacements ? No way!

Windows 2000 Server vs SAMBA -licensing per client

[grolschie]

Many organizationss have Win2K clients that log into a Domain provided by a Linux box running SAMBA. Once set up properly, it can be a Domain Controller and also replaces many of the other tasks that a 2K Server does, and without the huge license fee for the server (based on the number of clients connecting).

Re:Really? Check this (plz don't mod down)

[chris mazuc]

I'm pretty sure this dude is just trolling but this is too irritating to pass up.

An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
I don't have experience running any truly important systems, but the boxes I have administered have required almost zero maintenance. Unless I go and screw something up, I have found in my experience that it'll keep on chugging along. Besides the occassional ssh upgrade, I havn't had to touch anything on my NAT box since I installed it three years ago. It Just Works.

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly.
References please. If you are going to make statements this damning you are obligated to provide data backing you up.

Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
Of all of the computers I have owned in the past seven years, all ran linux and one of them crashed once for a reason not attributed to hardware failure. This bug was reported to the kernel developers and was fixed within a few hours.

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost.
Given a little work by the admin, linux can be dumbed down as much as you need it to be (corporate environment assumed). Oh, you ever installed one of the BSDs? I assure you, linux is nothing. (Disclaimer: I have nothing against the BSDs, they are damn fine operating systems in their own right)

The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification.
And would you like to tell us precicely what tools you are speaking of, as well as what your major beef is with them? Or how about one step better: go file some bug reports!

On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
Attacking the people you are setting your case against is a sure sign of a weak argument. Also see last paragraph.

I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
So what are you reccomending for us to use? I beg of thee, please share your infinite knowledge.

Why buy Microsoft? I'll tell you why...

[danielrm26]

Because people who have businesses care very much whether or not they succeed or fail. Microsoft has succeeded, in most cases, to convince those that matter that if they go with the alternative, they are taking a risk with their business.

Microsoft, to most businesses, is the "safe bet". It's considered the superior choice only because it's mainstream.

The real threat will come to Microsoft not via some certain tech advance - it will come in the form of a slow penetration of anti-MS and pro-Linux gossip being spread throughout the business community. Once this happens the game will be over and MS will have to *totally* re-invent themselves - another product release won't save them.

Re:Why buy Microsoft? I'll tell you why...

[clonebarkins]

Once this happens the game will be over and MS will have to *totally* re-invent themselves - another product release won't save them.

Right, just like the MPAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to play DVDs on their linux boxen; or like the RIAA re-invented themselves when people wanted to download music.

Unfortunately, monopolies don't see new technology and an smaller customer base as a chance to redefine their strategies. Rather, they use it as a chance to flex their muscle--both market and political--to force the public to do what they want. Microsoft's involvement in the TCPA shows that they already know the threat of their demise and are taking preemptive steps to demolish that threat (cf. Bush's preemptive steps to demolish the "threat" of Iraq).

Re:Why buy Microsoft? I'll tell you why...

[x98chn]

The real threat will come to Microsoft not via some certain tech advance - it will come in the form of a slow penetration of anti-MS and pro-Linux gossip being spread throughout the business community.

It sounds as if you're depending on FUD to get Linux to climb over MS... While certainly useful at times, it's not a business solution I'd personally want to rely on.

Buy Microsoft.

[Lord Sauron]

If you had asked me this very same question some years ago, I could have outlined a series of reasons why you should buy Microsoft and sell Enron.

Microsoft = more licensing cost AND Linux = cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft products require licensing, for example Windows 2000 Server requires a "Client Access License" for each connection, where as Linux does not have such a scheme, making Linux servers handle an unlimited amount of connections or you can set the maximum number connections. Making Linux Servers better then Microsoft Servers.

You can configure a Linux Server once and leave, it contune to run for a very long time, where Microsoft Server requires more frequently changing configurations.

Microsoft systems have hidden cost unlike Linux.

The quality of trolls is going down

[mangu]

/. management is doing so much to fight trolls that the more entertaining ones have left. The sad thing is that the parent to your post has been posted several times before and each time it has been modded up at first.

However, bad as it is, this troll usually gets a few good rebuttals. Therefore, here's my tip for Linux companies PR: post FUD from m$ at /. and watch the answers.

Reasons

[briancnorton]

Integration Support Cheap Admins 3rd party software That's really enough reasons, but the arguement is useless. Nothing will offer a mid to large businesses what they want at a reasonable price except running BOTH. It dosent suprise me that 25% of businesses are switching, but it dosent say they are jumping off the deck of the SS Microsoft. It just turns out to be more cost effective to offload some of the work onto cheaper Linux machines.

well....

[ecalkin]

let me start with some agreements:
i agree with you on the filesystem, but i'm spoiled because of netware. the recoverability of original (3x, 4x, 5x) netware fs was good and nss is outstanding.
i also agree to some extent with the poor tools.

but here's the kicker: people talk about the expensive linux (or unix, or netware) engineers and compare that to the low-cost (cheap?) ms engineers and they haven't compared oranges to oranges. a lot of people are lining up to get burned because their ms technical people don't know what they are doing. and mcse's that do know what they are doing are rare and expensive. i've made more money that i want to think about cleaning up after one or two people who thought they knew active directory.

eric

Re:Really? Check this (plz don't mod down)

[subzerohen]

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.

Alpha support for ext2fs was added in 1993. So the FreeBSD fs from 2003 blows Ext2fs out of the water? No shit Sherlock.

According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).

Hmm the kernel help text doesn't say that ReiserFS support is experimental. But of course as an AC on /. you are a much more credible source

The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'.

Yeah, the only drawback they removed was the non journaling nature of EXT2FS.

Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".

Yep, having full controll of the hardware platform and documentation will do that...

The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost.

Lets compare it to Unix as you did above. I'd say the learning curve is almost non-existant. If a sheep farmer from Victoria Australia who used to use Windows (We actually have one in the Gentoo forums) can teach himself Linux so can a Unix sysadmin.

The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification.

That has not been my experience. If you find something that irritates you file a bug report.

On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.

Yep, my Linux prinserver contains bad language. Better get rid of it.

I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.

What is clear is that you have a chip on your shoulder concerning Linux. Considering that there are lots of companies currently using Linux it clearly is an option for some.

In the end...

[Realistic_Dragon]

Windows really has to change to be able to compete.

Open Source software offers you the advantage of a propritary in house solution (customisability, flexibility) without having to go away and autally write all the code yourself - just change the bits you want changed.

Windows solutions (shared source being something of a joke) offer you very little more support or indemnification (read the EULA and see what's covered!) yet take away your flexibility.

In the long run, support costs with someone like CSC being similar for Windows or Linux (unfairly IMO, they must be raking it in even more than normal on Linux contracts, but there you go) a business needs to work out if the costs of customising an OSS app to make it perfect are more than the costs of licensing Windows. Factor in the cost of lock in to a Microsoft format and the loss of control in the figures, and you have a basis of comparison for your company.

-And of course if you contribute your changes back to the commnity (which you don't _have_ to do with the BSDL or under the GPL if you do not distribute outside the company) you will suddenly find yourself with Karma:Excellent in the geek community, which may or may not be good for your business.

dissrespect is the core problem.

[twitter]

The turning point is here. Savour the moment and celebrate, but remember the mistakes others have made. This is a wonderful thing to see, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The crowd is running at the wall now and it will be demolished before the makers of propriatory software know what hit them. You should be careful of your own attitude and be kind to those still suffering under non free software.

Everyone should use free software, free software should be used for everything and no one should write software that is not free. Only free software truely respects the user in one very important sense: Free software understands that if you hide the source from the user, the user will do it themselves. All other software is built on the assummption that the author is so clever that no one else can do what they do. The users have rewritten everything and the day of propriatory closed source software is over. It was not easy for the authors or the users of free software to get here, but now it seems obvious that it's the easiest way to go.

This does not mean that people will not make a living coding. Free software is just as valuable as the closed source stuff it's replacing. Society has and will continue to find ways to support people who know how to make and use it. In fact, free software lowers the barriers of entry so that more people than ever will be able to use their tallents. The losers in this transition will be those who have made lots of money screwing people around with upgrade trains, broken file formats, broken 3rd party software and other forms of intentional waste built on dissrespect.

There are many people unfortunate enough to have started with non free software. The comercial software world was created along with the personal computer industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The reasonable reaction to that was the creation of free software movements, BSD and GNU being prominent. It has taken a long time to get from there to here and in the mean time, M$ provided a path of least resistance that many followed. It was a false path because of the core values of the comercial software world, but once emeshed in that trap it's difficult to get out. A friend gave me his 1987 copy of the Emacs manual. There is no doubt in my mind that had I installed emacs on the XT clone I bought in 1987 and learned it instead of Word Perfect 4.1, I would be better off today. As it is, I took a long trip down the M$ path through Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and through work 2000 and countless applications on top of those platforms. The effort put into learning the differences between those versions of software is much greater than the effort I've had to put into the free software I've learned since because free software does not impose useless changes on it's users. Those of you who are just comming into the world of computing are very lucky.

You can keep free software alive and give something better to the next generation of users if you remember to have respect for them. Those of you who lack respect for your neighbors will only repeat the mistakes others have made since the 1980s. All it takes is the wrong attitude for the walls to start going up again.

Re:dissrespect is the core problem.

[smittyoneeach]

A moderate position might be that business should prefer a platform-agnostic approach to the greatest possible extent.
BillG and RMS are both bent on world domination, starting from different ends.
I thoroughly enjoy using free software. I haven't yet developed sufficient skill to contribute to a project (couldn't figure out how to link libraries in KDevelop, couldn't make sense of autoconf/automake until I found autoproject), and I've only contributed financially through the bookstore. Apparently, www.gnu.org is doing well enough.
I don't think that the walls against free software can ever go up again. The US can try to buttress the Monopoly Show ( or MS can expand its butt rest from the DOJ to the rest of the gubmint ) but the world at large is facing Redmond and yawning. How will, say, scientists doing genomics research collaborate if they can't use free tools, but spend their time dealing with the various exploits and incompatibilities?
No, paying an optional tax to a shadow government in Redmond will continue to lose appeal.
Of course, if everyone dumped MSFT, how far south would the NASDAQ go? In all honesty, concern over economic turbulence has got to be running through some senior heads...

Re:dissrespect is the core problem.

[Zeinfeld]

The turning point is here. Savour the moment and celebrate, but remember the mistakes others have made. This is a wonderful thing to see, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I have many friends from East Germany who would find the comparison highly offensive.

Enterprises use Microsoft for a simple reason, the alternatives suck. You might think that there is no difference between Microsoft Word and an open source alternative but end users don't.

Open source is hardly immune to buggy unreliable software and many users will even use the legacy unreliable and insecure code long after there is a better alternative. No software that Microsoft makes compares with sendmail for sheer awfulness. Yet sendmail is still hands down the main Unix mailer (unless you believe Prof Bernstein's QMail propaganda). There are much better alternatives, QMail and Exim, have been for years and years but they show no sign of dislodging the obsolete sendmail.

So given this position within the open source world why expect it to be different outside? The cost of Microsoft software is irrelevant if you are paying people to use it.

Re:dissrespect is the core problem.

[gandy909]

I believe the presupposition that "...Enterprises use Microsoft for a simple reason, the alternatives suck...." is completely incorrect. Rather, they use it because the enterprises up the street and down the street use it. They use it because all their employees and prospective employees (who aren't computer illiterate) can use it.

I too can think of one reason...

[haeger]

I use Linux (Mandrake) on my laptop, but I have yet to find any decent replacement for "Offline files" or the "Briefcase" or whatever it's called.

When I connect my laptop to the network I want it to synchronize my files. If it can do this via ssh to any remote server, even better.

Anyone know of any such product for Linux?

.haeger

Re:I too can think of one reason...

[Roblimo]

Draksync and Unison are both included in Mandrake and will do this.

Unison is platform/OS agnostic, BTW.

- Robin

Red Flag.

[twitter]

Companies go out of business for many reasons. Their choice of word processor isn't one of them.

It's an indicator. A company that wastes money on bad softare is probably wasting it elswhere too. The only places that will be running M$ junk soon are those so emeshed in red tape that they can't change a lightbulb without having a meeing, publishing a report and getting the proceedure authorized by upper management. It all adds up.

Any reason to buy Microsoft?

[aufecht]

Nope

Great Plains

[chigaze]

Also look at prepackaged software. Its all Windows based. Peoplesoft, great plains accounting, autocad, etc.

It should be noted that Great Plains was cross-platform (running on Macs and Windows) until Microsoft bought them and killed the Mac version. The only Windows machines in our entire office are the Finance Dept's because of this.

Still no MS enterprise desktop competition.

[reverendslappy]

MS is just starting to compete in the enterprise app space, but Unix still beats it hands-down. There's no argument there. But at the desktop in a large, distributed enterprise, Microsoft is the only rational choice. Period.

For some reasons already mentioned and for some not, Linux et. al. don't make sense for an enterprise to deploy to the desktop. Here's my reasons why:

1. Manageability. With tools like SMS, software distribution, policy compliance management, and enterprise inventory are a breeze. Sure there's a new MS patch all the time, but with minimal administrative effort, I can test and deploy a patch in no time. Our SLA on turn-around to deployment of a critical patch is 24 business hours. Three days after release of a patch or other software update, our entire 20,000+ client network is 85% or more patched. With about 20 man hours of work across three staff. Linux absolutely can not touch that. Also, Active Directory is the bomb. We can integrate our email system with our help desk system with SMS with enterprise apps and others, while creating and maintaining user data once, in one place. Sure you can do that with OSS stuff (using LDAP etc.) but AD works almost out of the box. Turn it on, migrate, boom done.
2. Accountability. Senior management has somebody (outside the organization) to blame when there's a critical failure. It sounds like a cop-out, but hey, that's how it works. I dunno about anybody else, but I like getting a paycheck. And therefore, I like having the ability to point the finger at someone else when they screw up. So do senior managers, because it mitigates their liability and the liability of the organization as a whole. In any situation, we have the ability to say "Sorry, Microsoft screwed up." In a Linux environment, what could we say? "Sorry, a community of people that I'm likely an active member of screwed up, and ultimately the screw up is as much my fault as anyone else's in that community. So can I have a box with handles for my personal belongings? Thanks."
3. It's cheaper. Period. Sure OSS stuff is free, sure Microsoft's licensing is pricey. But anyone who takes an honest look at total TCO will see that MS/Intel's price point can't be beat. Administration is cheaper. Hardware is cheaper. Development is cheaper. Users are already trained and therefore cheaper. User and administrative efficiencies are pre-built because people are already Windows/MS familiar before they login to a corporate PC. And you can talk about OSS superiority in certain areas all day, but the fact is, to a business, cheaper is always better.

Obviously 1 and 3 are the most compelling. 2 might be something kind of specific to the financial industry (which I work IT in) or maybe my organization. Who knows. There are also a lot of more arcane 2-ish reasons (a bunch of audit and risk management stuff) that have already been touched on (Microsoft is stable, easy to build a clearly-defined business relationship with, etc.)

To be honest, I hope the OSS community is able at some point to create products that compete with MS in the ways I described above. And while Linux may be taking some market share from Microsoft in middle-tier enterprise apps, it's gonna be a long time before it can compete at the enterprise desktop. So there's plenty of reasons to still buy Microsoft, that is, of course, if you want to keep your job.

Re:Still no MS enterprise desktop competition.

[the eric conspiracy]

I think an important counter argument can be made against each of your points:

1. Manageability. If you think that Windows is unique and UNIX/Linux doesn't have comparable tools, it's because you have not worked with a comparable sized UNIX installation. Rdist and LDAP can do everything and more that SMS and Active Directory can. Furthermore they do it cross platform using open standards that are interoperable across a wide range of platforms.

2. Accountability. Baloney. Microsoft isn't accountable to ANYONE, including the Department of Justice. Sure, you can BLAME them, but that is not the same thing as accountability. What you are talking about is the old 'Nobody got fired for buying IBM' which is of course a dead letter these days. Accountability means that you can recover damages from somebody when it breaks, or you can switch to a different supplier. The former is impossible, and the latter is only possible if you are using open standards (i.e. Linux).

3. It's cheaper. Microsoft is cheaper? Have you factored in the costs associated with license compliance, the poor stability of Microsoft platforms compared to Linux, the forced site licensing that requires you to buy TWO licenses per employee for every software package? And hardware is cheaper? Since when? Linux uses the same hardware. The only real advantage Microsoft has with cost is due to vendor lock-in of their user base. And you know what? You PAY and PAY and PAY for that because Microsoft has you by the short hairs. License 6.0 is the shot across the bow. Microsoft got away with a major price increase in the middle of a recession, and they KNOW it. Wait 'till you see License 7.0.

People are not switching to Linux for fun. They are doing so because it gives them an advantage.

piww

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology - NewsFactor
Is There Any Reason To Buy Microsoft Anymore?
Fri May 9, 1:48 PM ET
Add Technology - NewsFactor to My Yahoo!

Vincent Ryan, www.NewsFactor.com

The development and growth of the Linux (news - web sites) operating system has brought a new question to the lips of IT managers: Why should I buy Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - news)? Five years ago, the answer would have been easy. With the dominant development tools, client operating system and client applications, Microsoft owned a certain portion of the enterprise (news - web sites).

Linux' New Best Friend: Microsoft Licensing 6.0
Microsoft Embraces Linux! (Sort Of)
What Next for .NET?

delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Quote Data provided by Reuters

But now that the Linux OS is rapidly maturing and companies are looking to shrink IT budgets, the choice is not so easy. Almost everything enterprises once found unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else -- without some of the baggage that comes with Microsoft purchases, like ongoing security concerns and mystifying licensing practices. Enterprises finally have a real choice, and that spells big problems for Microsoft.

In a recent survey of CIOs, Forrester Research found that about 25 percent of them were already in the process of replacing Windows servers with Linux. However, the switch may not be quite as seamless as one would hope. In fact, for enterprises that run their entire organizations on top of Microsoft products, a wholesale migration to Linux would be costly, Bill Claybrook, research director at Aberdeen Group, told NewsFactor. "Not only do you have the porting costs, but you have the systems administration costs. You have to retrain a lot of people," Claybrook said.

Battle Brewing

The real threat to Microsoft from Linux is not only that Linux will take away existing Windows business, but that it will overtake Microsoft in product areas where Microsoft is trying to grow its market share. Such a situation currently exists in the market for enterprise servers that run corporate data centers. Companies moving to Intel-based platforms from the dominant IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) and Sun platforms now have a choice between Windows and Linux, and vendors from both camps are vying for this migration business.

Who will win? The market favors Linux, according to Claybrook. "Linux is going to take over all those applications where Unix (news - web sites) is already strong," he said, pointing to the database server market as an example. "Linux scales as well as Windows does and has much better clustering capabilities," he noted.

But in the long-term, the battle centers on the hearts and minds of developers. Historically, the scarcity of applications on Linux has been a major advantage for Microsoft. That is no longer the case.

Instead, rather than general application availability, the biggest hurdle for Linux will be support by vendors touting a new generation of enterprise applications, such as customer relationship management (CRM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP). Still, the trend may favor Linux at Microsoft's expense. "There's a lot of Linux development going on, and it's going to make a dent in Windows' market share," Claybrook said.

Microsoft Counterstrike

Microsoft recently launched the Empower program for small ISVs (independent software vendors) to start defending against some of the developer defections. This program gives developers willing to stick with Windows a good amount of free Microsoft software as an incentive. At the same time, Microsoft also is sending out more evangelists to train application builders and help small ISVs get their products Windows-certified.

According to Ted Schadler, principal analyst at Forrester Research, the development-focused benefits of the Microsoft architecture are still a strong lure. Strong developer tools, pre-integrated servers and a consistent programming model on every tier are attributes tha

Come on....

[ajole]

Multimedia Multimedia Multimedia. show me ASIO and all the blinking apps for Linux/UNIX.

Example: Soundforge/Propellerhead Reason with synchronized hardware outputs; basic music production/sound engineering tools.

plain and simple.

your secretary?

[twitter]

She's still crying for Word Perfect, which let her see codes in her documents and correct them the few times the program made mistakes or did not understand what she wanted. Chances are she will like being able to fix things under Linux better than pushing the reset button under Windoze. Oh yeah, she can get version 8 of Word Perfect as a native Linux binary. It works well, though I'd prefer they make a newer version.

You should have more respect for the secretary and let her make up her own mind. Tell her she can have Word Perfect back and see if you can stop her from figuring it out. Ha!

By the way, the next time your CD get's stuck try right clicking the little picture of a CD on your desktop and chose "unmount" or "eject". If that does not work try using the command, "umount" or making an alias for "unmount".

At a reasonable company the secretary would not need a CD drive. She should be able to ftp her pictures from home to the company picture share or get her music from the company music share. Under those cirumstances, I can imagine someone forgetting how to unmount a CD. There should be someone around who would sooth your furry and panic. Next time, just ask the secretary.

Predatory Pricing = Bad Taste

[The Mutant]

Speaking as someone who in the past has managed budgets of up to five million US dollars for a global investment bank (I was a line manager, and that was my project budget) Microsofts well documented Predatory Pricing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Now I'm not an anti-Microsofter; I have a complex love / hate thing going for them.

I remember CPM / DOS quite well, and wondering why I couldn't use a GUI like I had at work (SparcStations) and the absolute joy when windows 3.0 then 3.1, etc came along.

And then there are their Office applications and generally well received development tools. I like lots of things about their products - accelerator keys rock, for example! So they've done some good.

But then they've got to go and destroy all the good will towards them by simply insisting that they will own all of it.

So if I have a choice between Microsoft and anyone else, I'll go with the latter. The industry as a whole has been damaged enough by Redmonds behaviour.

History....

[hugesmile]

The reason people will buy or recommend Microsoft may stem from being burned in the past. Your age may determine how many times you were burned...

Real world examples:

"We need to recommend Mac's. Apple was THE FIRST SERIOUS PC, and Mac was the first GUI. It is far superior to anything running on the PC." (1987)

"Novell has 80% of the Network Operating System market. Go with the defacto standard; the industry leader." (1992)

"The Netscape team INVENTED browsing. Deploy Netscape Communicator to the desktop. Their browser and mail client will continue to dominate the desktop." (1996)

"The ONLY serious competitor in palmtop computing is the Palm Pilot. Why consider anything else?" (1998)

You can say it again and again for Apache (market leader, practically invented the market), Java (re-invented the concept of write-once-run-anywhere), home gaming systems, and forty other technologies.

The bottom line is that you better have a GREAT reason to bet against "Dollar Bill". He knows that there's more to the market than superior products (in fact, product superiority is probably low on Microsoft's strategic list, behind good marketing, product interoperability, and spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

I think Microsoft's here to stay as long as Bill's driving the ship. Why bet my business by betting AGAINST Gates?

Re:History....

[sheldon]

Actually spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt seems to be the hallmark of the Open Source world these days... :(

Not everyone agrees...Rob Pike for example

[andy666]

Many of you may have seen this, but Rob Pike has an interesting paper about systems research at www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/rob/utah2000.pd Called Systems Software Research is Irrelevant Here is an excerpt: Where's the Innovation ? Microsoft, mostly. Exercise: Compare 1990 Microsoft software with 2000. If you claim that's not innovation, but copying, I reply that Java is to C++ as Windows is to the Macintosh: an industrial response to an interesting but technically flawed piece of systems software. If systems research was relevant, we'd see new operating systems and new languages making inroads into the industry, the way we did in the '70s and '80s. Instead, we see a thriving software industry that largely ignores research, and a research community that writes papers rather than software.

I like my job

[bigman2003]

If everyone uses free software, and nothing but free software...where do all the programmers go?

I like getting paid to write software. If nobody bought software, I guess that programming would be a 'hobby' and not a 'profession'.

I think the free software people are idiots. Kinda the same if 1/2 the plumbers in the world went around doing the job for nothing- because 'everyone should have water'.

I like getting paid to write code. I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people do. If the companies don't sell the products, and make a lot of money, then the whole idea of a paid programmer will go away. That would be a bummer.

So why the hell do you want to give your work away for free? That's some crack that I ain't smokin'.

At this rate programmers will be like artists- all underpaid and 'struggling'.

Who the hell came up with the idea that my time, effort, and labor is not worth any money? Please don't offer my employer to replace me with something that is free. You may be on your moral high-horse, but what you are really doing is killing one more tech job.

Re:I like my job

[HalfFlat]

Almost all the software I get paid to write is written to allow my employer to do their work better, faster, or at all. Only a small portion is for distribution outside the company. Even if the distributed code were to be given away free of cost, the other code I write - which again, is by far the majority - would keep me employed and valuable to the company.

I would go so far as to say that most code written is written to perform some task for the people employing the programmer, rather than for resale.

That said, note that free (as in GPL) software does not mean that a company producing it gets no revenue. For starters, it need not be given to customers for free; while the customers can then create derivatives, redistribute source and so forth, they still need to buy the program in the first place. Given a choice of buying it with support from the vendor, or compiling it themselves from source gained from a 3rd party, many would (and do!) buy it from the vendor.

Further in products which contain a mixture of code and other material (for example, computer games, databases with data, etc.) the code component can be free-in-GPL and free-in-cost, while still generating revenue for the creators as part of a product which is very much not free.

You like being paid to write software. That's good, getting payed for practicing an art that (I presume) you enjoy and are skilled at. If free software became the norm, only one particular avenue of revenue for potential employers is removed, and it is one which probably does not account for more than a fraction of employed coders. There will still be many opportunities for you to practice your art. And with much free software available, you have a much greater opportunity to learn from and build upon the work of others, potentially allowing you to be a better and more efficient programmer.

Re:I like my job

[sjames]

Software still has to be written, maintained, and supported. At one time, there was little or no proprietary software. Most of it was either given away to sell mainframes, or written and maintained in-house to meet business needs. If priprietary software goes away, we'll simply return to that situation, just like waking from a nightmare.

I write Free software for a living. The biggest difference is that my license doesn't translate to 'all your base are belong to us' and I never have to reinvent my own wheel.

When Free software takes over, there will be MORE demand for programmers than ever. There are a great many proprietary apps out there that various businesses wish they could customise feature X or add feature Y. Proprietary software means that those customizations are simply out of the question, so that's one less position for a programmer. The money to pay the programmer's salary will come out of the licensing costs no longer paid out and from the administrative costs of license compliance that is no longer necessary.

The net result of Free software taking over is that a huge inefficiency in the economy will be removed. If any professions suffer because of Free software, it will be lawyers and redundant administrators.

Re:I like my job

[numark]

This brings up a common misconception. "Free" software, as the old adage goes, is "free as in speech, not free as in beer". In other words, free software manufacturers can most definitely sell their works for a profit. Think of Red Hat. They sell a boxed version of free software for $69.95, and what is the user buying? Not only the collection of free software, but also the support contracts, warranty, and other features that you can only get in a boxed version.

Another example is MySQL. One company sells support contracts for that software and makes quite a bit doing just that. But MySQL is free both in speech and beer. Yet they still make money helping people fix problems that they have with it.

Free software can make companies money, it's as simple as that. It's not that the companies are developing programs they pass around without any cost whatsoever. Programmers still earn money because their work still profits the company. In other words, the exact same thing that goes on with proprietary software, just shifting the philosophy around. The money is still there.

Re:I like my job

[aallan]

I would go so far as to say that most code written is written to perform some task for the people employing the programmer, rather than for resale.

Enitrely agree, the number of truely generic tools is fairly limitied, the number of process specific tools is much larger.

I get paid to write software, these days I slap a GPL license onto everything I ship, but a great deal of this won't ever be seen by the public because its not generally useful and nobody would actually be interested. The stuff that is generally useful will eventually make its way into the wild, but its defaintely in the minority.

Al.

Re:I like my job

[maxpublic]

If everyone uses free software, and nothing but free software...where do all the programmers go?

As a geek, you could use your extensive knowledge of Klingon to get a job in Oregon.

Max

Re:I like my job

[An Onerous Coward]

"If everyone uses free software, and nothing but free software...where do all the programmers go?"

You've completely missed the whole point of "free software." It's not about "giving away your hard work without compensation." It's about not placing encumbrances on those who receive the software from you.

"I like getting paid to write software. If nobody bought software, I guess that programming would be a 'hobby' and not a 'profession'."

I'm still a bit confused by your position. As long as there are things software doesn't yet do, somebody is going to have financial incentive to pay you to write it. And if there is something that software can already do, why in God's name should anyone have to pay you to re-implement it?

Or, in the instance of buggy code, people are still going to be paying people money to fix them. The only difference is, in the brave new world of free software, the person with the problem can go to any of a thousand programmers to get the fix, rather than having to go to the owner of the source code.

"I think the free software people are idiots. Kinda the same if 1/2 the plumbers in the world went around doing the job for nothing- because 'everyone should have water'."

Well, I think the proprietary people are, erm...well, not really idiots. Let's just say we don't share the same values. To play with your analogy, it's the same as a plumber installing the pipes in your house, then forcing you to sign a contract stating that you cannot modify the plumbing system yourself or go to any competing plumber to fix a problem.

But the analogy you're using doesn't map very well. With plumbers and plumbing, if a person goes to one house and fixes all the leaks and adds stubs for the new bathroom the house owner is planning, that benefits only the owner of that specific house. Because code can be copied with almost zero marginal cost, making improvements to the code benefits everyone.

Unlike the plumbing scenario, this one raises the question, "How many times should a person be paid for the same work?"

"I like getting paid to write code. I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people do. If the companies don't sell the products, and make a lot of money, then the whole idea of a paid programmer will go away. That would be a bummer."

I believe that the vast majority of software (something on the order of 80%) is written entirely for in-house needs. People are being paid to write that software, and being paid well. There will always be situations where free software widget X doesn't do quite what is needed. Unpaid developers are going to work on whatever they happen to find interesting, and his interests are seldom going to coincide with those of the company wanting the new feature. If the company wants the feature, they have to fork over some cash to get to the front of the line.

So why the hell do you want to give your work away for free? That's some crack that I ain't smokin'.

There have been a lot of surveys on precisely this question (minus the crack pipe). The important reasons, in no particular order, are:

1) To show off, and get some fame among software enthusiasts.
2) To work on something interesting and useful to them, rather than "yet another e-business solution."
3) To make the world a hippy utopia.
4) To hone skills.
5) Intellectual challenge.

Now, as a self-professed desirer of paychecks, you might be most interested in #1. A sense of community often develops around projects. People are recognized for their work. People make a name for themselves by producing code. When said highly credible people find themselves between jobs, they have a community of friends in the software industry.

Oh, and being able to say "I built feature X into project Y" sounds

Quotes from the article

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Quoth the AC:

Yeah, because LOTS of enterprises run Office on their servers, right? Please RTFA.

If you had R'd TFA then you'd spot that a lot of it does relate to things other than the OS side of the market, and many of the claims made are general and across the board. In fact, from the original article, and citing a guy from SuSE of all places:

"The concern is the user's experience," Migliaccio noted. "The business user doesn't know much about the operating system or interact with it. The question is, do [the applications] provide the functionality they need, and can [IT] support them?"

Some of the other more telling quotes from the article follow.

Five years ago, the answer would have been easy. With the dominant development tools, client operating system and client applications, Microsoft owned a certain portion of the enterprise

That is still true, if anything more so today than it was five years ago. MS still totally dominate the desktop. In particular, their Windows development tools and office suite still completely outclass the OS equivalents. To give credit where it's due, a couple more years at this rate and OpenOffice could be a real threat. I haven't seen any open source project currently in development that's even close to Visual Studio.

Almost everything enterprises once found unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else -- without some of the baggage that comes with Microsoft purchases, like ongoing security concerns and mystifying licensing practices.

Because of course, open source things are immune to bugs and security problems... not. If you really think "almost everything" that was once unique to Microsoft now has a serious open source competitor, you haven't been looking very carefully.

On the desktop side, Linux is also providing viable alternatives to Windows. For example, Linux vendor SuSE recently introduced Office Desktop, a Linux product that includes a copy of Sun StarOffice 6.0, which is a competitor to the Microsoft Office suite.

It may be a competitor, but it ain't a better product. It's got a way to go before it challenges either the raw power or the ease of use of the Microsoft suite. For geeks who are happy to play with new toys, it's great, and maybe in the future it will be great for Joe Average as well, but enough with the kidding ourselves, OK? It isn't there yet.

Re:Quotes from the article

[Reziac]

"[StarOffice] may be a competitor [to M$Office], but it ain't a better product."

And here's an example of how true that is (and this isn't meant as a flame, tho I'm sure some will read it that way):

I hate, loathe, despite, can't stand, and do everything I can to avoid using WinWord; the whole way the program works is an exercise in disorganization and "you can't do thats". And I don't like the rest of M$Office much either; IMO, Powerpoint's design positively stinks.

I tried StarOffice 5.x for Win32... and, well, if it were the ONLY alternative to M$Office, I'd gladly embrace WinWord and Powerpoint. StarOffice was *that* annoying and inadequate. Its word processor reminds me of nothing so much as a bad miscegenation of Wordstar 5.x and DOSWord6. And it's SLOW!! (Nothing else ran that poorly on that machine, including OfficeXP.) I gather SO 6.0 is somewhat better, but I doubt that the basic design has changed all that much.

Thankfully, there's still the WordPerfect suite. (For a while.. :(

Re:Quotes from the article

[rowanxmas]

You would be zippy to if you were loaded at startup and never taken out of memory, and had on OS desinged around you.

Re:Quotes from the article

[Fred_A]

The biggest difference between those and the Microsoft equivalents is (1) load time [especially on windows]

I never understood this gripe. From what I've seen (I haven't really used any version since Word 2) the MS stuff starts faster than OOo, but since I'm going to spend hours using the package after I've started it, what do I care that it takes 10 seconds more to load ? I hardly consider that a criteria to base the choice of an office suite on...

Exchange?

[Moridineas]

It seems to me that the one missing link in open source software replacements is some kind of replacement for MS exchange.

I would LOVE to be able to have some kind of solution that could do group calendaring, mail, and shared addressing. As it is now I'm using cyrus imapd, a webmail program, a different LDAP web gateway, and a different web calendaring program. We had used a trial of exchange about 4 years ago, and people still miss the features (even though we didn't stick with exchange due to cost)

MS and the economy

[Idou]

"if everyone dumped MSFT, how far south would the NASDAQ go?"

Well, actually MS is now traded on the NYSE, which gives you a feeling for what type of company it has become. However, back to the intention of your statement, since the performance of the economy is a function of the costs of capital inputs, the truth is our economy is being HURT by the MS monopoly. Consider it a "software shock" instead of a "oil shock," companies that are forced (by their own ignorance) to use MS software are less competitive because their inputs are more expensive and restricting. MS software inflates pc prices, just like expensive oil inflates all petroleum related products. This results in less consumption and less profitability and overall revenue to non-MS companies.

My company just had 10% layoffs and had we not gone with their new license plan, I am sure many of those people could have still had jobs. This is the reason that anti-trust laws exist. Not to be fair but because monopolies HURT the economy. Unfortunately, a monopoly with enough money not only adversely affects the economy but also the government.

Re:MS and the economy

[smittyoneeach]

Perhaps one should pay more attention to Wall Street. Tomorrow.
Clearly, over time, money given to BeelzeBill is money not spent elsewhere. However, in a land where near-term is the next quarterly statement, and long-term the next election, who can expect courage from the leadership?

Re:MS and the economy

[Thing 1]

Well, actually MS is now traded on the NYSE, which gives you a feeling for what type of company it has become.

Where did you get that information? I went to nyse.com and did a "Symbol Lookup" for Microsoft, which sent me to this page showing that Microsoft is a NASDAQ company.

So obviously it's not "now traded on the NYSE." Is it going to be?

PROPRIETARY software impoverishes MORE programmers

[Idou]

unless you work for MS, most programming jobs are related to customization and maintenance. With proprietary software, though, there IS no customization (unless you want to be sued) and maintenance is either done by the vendor, at usually a reckless level, and by a MSCE over at the customer side. This results in a net LOSS of programming jobs (though cheap, mindless admin jobs have increased).

For instance, my company was nearly a YEAR into writing financial reports for the company. All the software we were using was proprietary. Suddenly, towards the end of the project, it was discovered that the software could not combine the portrait and landscape types of sheets into one package on the company website. It would have been more cost efficient to pay a programmer 50k JUST to fix this one issue, but since it was proprietary software (and the of course the vendor didn't care), we had to switch proprietary software and start over!

The truth is EVERY software related project should employ a programmer because you never know what the limitations of the already available software will be until you are too deep into the project. The reason that every project DOESN'T employ a programmer is the company doesn't have permission to customize the code, so, in the end, their only option is to change products. So you get companies full of Admins and no programmers.

Proprietary software kills more quality tech jobs and replaces them with mindless, admin jobs.

This month's "Linux will dominate Windows" Article

[btakita]

It seems like there has been a steady stream of these articles for a while. At first I believed them. Now it seems more like wishful thinking with every new "Linux will rule the world" article. I also tried OpenOffice and it is not as stable, mature and is way more bloated (Java) than MSOffice. Mozilla is now a great browser with many new features being added. It took a few to get to this point however. So OpenOffice has still has some maturing to do. There is something to be said about easy to use tools. Believe it or not, not everybody wants to think about tweaking, installing software dependencies, configuring, etc. People also like helpful and friendly help files (PHP is a great example). Time is more valuable and costly than software. OS can cost more if it takes much longer to learn and adopt. Don't get me wrong, OSS has its place. However, Microsoft does have some serious momentum in the marketplace especially with .NET. How do I know? Look at the job postings. Lots of .NET jobs even in this "dismal" economy.

Re:Windows 2000 Server vs SAMBA -licensing per cli

[Man Eating Duck]

A good point, which we discussed. Sadly, the problem is that some of the various pieces of software is 16-bit, and it's a pain to get it to run, even in Windows. One old Foxpro-application actually required the resolution to be exactly 800x600, 16 bpp (talk about those 18" LCDs going to waste...). Otherwise, it refused to launch. Screensaver starting? Crash and burn. Alt-tabbing out? Ditto. It even crashed due to Large fonts being selected. And of course, it was barely able to read its own database files. Talk about lock-in :(

Oh, to just have a suite of good, up to date medical software, running on top of mySQL, that ported to different platforms. I'm sure there is a fortune to be made.

Re:Well almost...

[croddy]

I have a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical USB and PS/2 Compatible (according to the label underneath). when I booted from the redhat installers (or knoppix, for that matter), it was picked up and automatically configured by the default hardware sweep. the scroll wheel worked immediately, in the installer, as well as in the OS. remember 90% of people use a 2btn or 2btn+Scroll mouse...