Slashdot Mirror
OSDL CEO: Microsoft Has to Accept Linux
PenguinCandidate writes "The OSDL's Stuart Cohen has been in the news lately following a clandestine meeting with Microsoft about a dubiously independent TCO study; a study that has since been rejected by the OSDL. The idea of an independent Windows/Linux TCO comparison may be dead, but did Cohen have an additional card up his sleeve?
In this interview, Cohen states that while he "awaits the reply from MS's Martin Taylor on the results of his internal investigation" into how an off-the-record meeting became public, he will continue to promote his belief that MS will eventually have to accept Linux as customer demand increases."
If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff). Obviously TCO of the same car varies depending on the expertise and willingness of the customer to crawl underneath and get dirty.
Similarly, if a customer has to hire someone to edit his inittab then it's probably going to cost more than a Windows jockey clicking on services attributes. Dunno, there's just too many indefinite variable to compare complex systems.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Recognition vs. Acceptance vs. Surrender
MS has recognized Linux's place in the marketplace. They know of Linux's server market growth and its desktop push. Ms recognizes the choices in Open Source software (OO.o vs. MS Office, for example).
MS has not accepted this. Probably will not either. Thus the TCO fudging and other FUDs. If Microsoft accepts the qualities of Linux (and OSS), they wouldn't FUD it. They'd acknowledge its benefits and make THEIR offerings better.
So once you make the distinction between recognition and acceptance, the statement pretty much pans out ok.
In an odd way, that's exactly what I believe Microsoft wishes the situation to be: Linux the junior partner to Windows. Microsoft will not accept Linux as the dominant server in the enterprise in any way. It has been suggested that recent acquisitions in the area of enterprise management by Microsoft is to ensure that whatever the Linux/Windows balance is, Windows will be in charge of the data centre. All the better to enforce its IP rights, no doubt.
I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.
The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
MS accepts that it must compete against Linux, but I think that Mr Cohen is trying to point out some of the dumber MS practices, in regards to interoperability.
In my experience alot of this is related to how MS wants to integrate it's enterprise level products into the OS. The two biggest examples I can think of are:
- SQLServer
- .NET
Basically they both run as services (IIS, I think) on Windows OSs, making them inherently incompatible with Linux or any other OS. It's all part and parcel to this Microsoft mentality that to make the most money, we need to be an end-to-end solution; for everything.So what is my point? Well, if MS was really about making the best product you could run it on a multitude of OSs. Because if SQLServer and the .NET (web apps) were really that good they could be more OS agnostic. The alternatives, Oracle, J2EE, PHP, etc run almost anywhere. It would also be nice to see Active Directory provide full LDAP support.
And it isn't even the end-to-end solution that bothers me. It is also the lock out of everyone else (but, I guess Microsoft can always say, "Look how well we play with ourselves" ;-) ). This also seems to be half of what causes all of the OS security problems and release delays. Instead of having each app provide its own services (to some extent), the OS comes with bits and pieces for other MS apps. Some of these bits don't seem to get used much, but everyone gets them. This all adds to the complexity of the OS. While Bill and Balmer spout that it makes "everything easier to do", I disagree. I would rather set up a cluster of app servers for J2EE than attempt that nonsense for .NET using the built in configuration options (from the control panel).
I think it is possible that Vista/Longhorn will not be that sucessful. Then MS will have to make SQLServer and .NET web apps run on something else... like everything else in the world. That is just conjecture (or wishful thinking, perhaps), but that will be the only way MS can hold its ground in the long run (at least in the business IT world). Ceterus Peribus.
Yesterday I had the prideful pleasure of watching my eldest daughter show me how she can play ANY of her CD's on her linux box. She uses FireFox, openOffice, Gaim, Thunderbird, Gimp, and soon Blender3D; All on KDE from a Knoppix distro. Her "Jump Start" games are starting to collect dust next to the Win'98se master cd. When she asked what is "BSOD"? I said, "It's just your father dating himself."