OSS on Windows the Next Big Thing?

Lam1969 writes "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed. Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them." From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."

Comments

Smells Like Astroturf

[telbij]

On the one hand, it's good for clueless IT managers to know they can run OSS on Windows, on the other hand it's been that way forever and anyone who didn't know you could run Apache on Windows shouldn't be managing the web server.

What the article completely ignores is why geeks prefer Linux. It's not hard to understand. When you're setting up infrastructure, you want to plan for the long term. If you go with Microsoft there's really no telling what's in the pipeline--their whole marketing strategy is based on overpromising which renders their roadmaps useless. Linux and open source app development is more predictable. Even though Microsoft can push stuff out faster, everyone knows the ultimate goal is profits. That means they'll inevitably change things and add dubious features just to force upgrades. On the other hand open-source applications exist primarily to solve specific problems.

There are a ton of short-term reasons to go with Microsoft:

• 
         
• It does what you need now.
• 
         
• Your staff knows it.
• 
         
• You've already invested in it.
• 
         
• Support comes with it.
• 
         
• Your boss has the full-color brochure
• 
         
• It's 'people-ready'

On the other hand, long-term all these reasons evaporate. Open source projects can fall into dis-repair too, but at least you know a project isn't going to be scrapped because it's not driving upgrades anymore.

Re:And so

[Jason Earl]

I agree. However, in this case it is Microsoft that is feeling the squeeze. In a lot of cases the Free Software that people want to run on Windows competes directly with software that Microsoft sells. Having this software available for Windows means that it is not necessary to have UNIX knowledge to deploy Free Software applications. However, once you are using Free Software applications on Windows it becomes trivial to migrate to some other platform. Not only does Free Software on Windows loosen Microsoft's grasp on customers, but it makes it much harder for Microsoft to use its market power to embrace and extend protocols.

Apache, PHP... sure. OOo, no way

[Rob Y.]

I notice that you listed a slew of desktop apps that you run on Windows.

Interestingly, the article has PHP and Apache icons to define its category. Sure, Microsoft wants you to run your Apache and PHP applications on Windows. What choice do they have? If you're already building Apache/PHP apps, you're probably building them on Linux. Any move to Windows is a net gain for Microsoft, and a net loss for Linux.

But OOo. It'll be a cold day in Hell before Microsoft recommends that on Windows. Or Firefox, or Thunderbird or any of the other desktop apps listed here. Of course, most of them run great on Windows (in fact, often better than on Linux, but don't get me started there...), so if MS were really serious about encouraging OSS for Windows, they'd be on board with these apps too.

Anyway, if you've gotta run Windows, lots of OSS desktop apps are available, and you oughta use 'em. But, don't expect Microsoft to tell you that.