[DMCA-Activists] Evans: GNU/Linux Blind Spot for Microsoft

[Seth Johnson]

(Rather astute critical analysis.  -- Seth)


> http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=51201701


Microsoft And Its Blind Spot: Linux

Steve Ballmer's letter to customers said nothing about the
widespread reality of tens of thousands of Microsoft customers
who are eager to deploy BOTH Windows and Linux.


By Bob Evans,  InformationWeek
Nov. 1, 2004


It's not so much what he did say; it's more a matter of what he
didn't say. Steve Ballmer's letter to customers that was also
artfully distributed to media across the world said that some
analysts say a Windows enterprise solution is often less
expensive than a comparable Linux enterprise solution.

He said some analysts question "how safe the Linux platform
really is."

He said some analysts contend customers can install enterprise
Windows solutions faster and with less support than enterprise
Linux solutions.

He said some analysts say it's harder to find and/or more
expensive to engage qualified Linux personnel than it is to find
qualified Windows personnel.

He said that "no vendor today stands behind Linux with full IP
indemnification," but that when volume-licensing customers
license a Microsoft product, "we provide uncapped protection for
legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark, or
trade secret claim alleging infringement by a Microsoft product."

He also talked about how some studies show Windows outperforms
Linux in Unix migration, and about the need for careful long-term
planning, and about how this choice--this black/white, either/or
choice--is critically important.

But Steve Ballmer said nothing about the widespread reality of
tens of thousands of Microsoft customers who are eager to deploy
BOTH Windows and Linux, and are quite naturally looking to the
most-powerful and -influential software company in the world to
help them with that. And Steve Ballmer had plenty of opportunity
to say something about it--his 2,400-word letter
(http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51201508)
certainly spared no detail or description in touting Windows-only
strategies. And there's nothing wrong with that--as the CEO of
Microsoft, it's certainly Steve Ballmer's job to tell the world
about the business value of the company's products.

But.

Ballmer could have tossed at least a bone, a chunk of gristle, or
even a crumb to the companies that buy tons of Microsoft products
but also want to use Linux. Whether their motivation is to avoid
extreme overdependence on one vendor or their belief that in
spite of Ballmer's letter Linux outperforms Windows in some
situations or their desire to keep all options open, don't they
deserve some recognition from Microsoft? (Got an opinion on this?
Feel free to share your feedback not only with us
(mailto:address@hidden), but also with Ballmer colleague Martin
Taylor (mailto:address@hidden), Microsoft's general
manager in charge of anti-Linux strategy
(http://blog.informationweek.com/windows/archives/001476.html)).

After all, look at how Ballmer opens his letter (and bear in mind
it's a 4-1/2-page opus, not a few scribbles on the back of an
envelope leaving him no room to address such an apparently
marginal topic): "In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft
employees have with customers around the world every day, many of
the same questions consistently surface: Does an open-source
platform really provide a long-term cost advantage compared with
Windows? Which platform offers the most secure computing
environment? ... In moving from an expensive Unix platform,
what's the best alternative in terms of migration?"

For cryin' out loud, what a perfect setup, and what a blown
opportunity! Ballmer still could have used four or even 4-1/4
full pages to say how great Windows is, but couldn't he have
acknowledged something like this: "And while we strongly believe
our customers gain the greatest business value through deploying
all-Windows environments, we realize some of you nevertheless
want to run both Windows and Linux. This has been a source of
enormous debate within our company because we see Linux as a
significant competitive threat, and we feel we could make a great
case for resisting the call to simplify the integration of our
products with those of a major competitor. However, in the
interest of doing what we think is best for our customers, we are
creating a new business unit called Windows/Open Source
Integration Services to help you optimize your efforts to deploy
both products in whatever ways work best for your company. That's
our latest effort in helping you be as successful as possible,
and we look forward to sharing with your our most recent and best
innovations in this area."

The appeal of the heterogeneous environment has certainly not
been lost on some of Microsoft's top hardware partners--Dell,
Hewlett-Packard (https://h30201.www3.hp.com/Default.asp), and
IBM--all of whom are vigorously touting new Linux-based servers
and solutions. In fact, last week at almost the same time that
Microsoft sent out the Ballmer letter, Dell expanded its
commitment to enterprise-level Linux by agreeing to begin
offering by the end of this year Dell servers with Novell's SuSE
Linux Enterprise Server 9 preinstalled
(http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51200853&tid=5999).
That, reports my colleague Larry Greenemeier
(mailto:address@hidden), comes on top of the similar Linux deal
that's been in place for 15 months between Dell and Red Hat for
its enterprise version of Linux. And some of the analyst findings
cited so assiduously by Ballmer in his letter can be open to some
interpretation (http://www.linuxpipeline.com/51201011), according
to my colleague John Foley (mailto:address@hidden): "A Yankee
Group report is among the data showing Windows to be cheaper than
Linux in some situations. But that's the catch, it's only in
certain circumstances, such as when a company is already heavily
invested in Microsoft software or has internal Windows expertise.
In other cases, Linux is sometimes cheaper."

Maybe I'm all wet on this. Maybe some/many/most of you are moving
away from heterogeneous environments and toward all-for-one
commitments. Maybe it's insanity--or at least wobbly kneed
socialism--for me to suggest that Microsoft should put its
customers' interests ahead of the company's own competitive
intensity. Maybe Linux really is nothing but a pimple on an
elephant's keister and is managing to glom far more publicity
than it deserves purely because the argument links it to
Microsoft. But if that's the case, then why are HP and IBM and
Dell increasingly committed to Linux? Why are those "thousands"
of customers cited even by Steve Ballmer asking about open-source
solutions and Linux? Why, indeed, would Steve Ballmer and
Microsoft make such a big deal with this letter about Linux if
they weren't feeling pressured by market forces to speak out and
make a very public case?

A year ago in this space, I wrote an open letter to Microsoft
about this same issue with Linux
(http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15306233).
At that time, I said, "The problem with this Linux thing, though,
is that in the battle to marginalize, isolate, stigmatize and
perhaps even cripple Linux, it's not going to be just Linux that
bears the brunt of your assaults. Instead, it will be thousands
of your customers who will also feel the nontrivial effects of
that isolation and marginalization."

I wish I could say, "What a difference a year makes." But nothing
about Microsoft's attitude regarding Linux has changed. For
customers, that's a shame. And it could turn out to be an even
bigger shame for Microsoft.

To discuss this column with other readers, please visit Bob
Evans's forum (http://www.informationweek.com/forum/bobevans) on
the Listening Post (http://www.informationweek.com/LP/).

To find out more about Bob Evans, please visit his page
(http://www.informationweek.com/LP/columnists/bobevans.html) on
the Listening Post.


-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.