Linux Goes Legit (WindowsITPro) [LWN.net]

Linux Goes Legit (WindowsITPro)

Posted Aug 15, 2007 18:00 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well the only 'new era' we are 'entering into' is the fact that Microsoft recognizes the needs for their customers who want to use Microsoft software in mixed environments. Linux and open source software is quickly becoming the base ingredient 'glue' that is holding the enterprise together. Unless Microsoft is willing to work with that then their ability to compete is going to diminish.

Of course Microsoft, being what they are, has to choose the most half-assed, expensive, difficult, and insulting way possible. That is they choose to pay Novell 400 million dollars so that they could promise not to sue Novell's (and their own) customers for any patent infringement. (keep in mind that Microsoft violates patents in the same way Linux does. Just different ones)

It's a bit idiotic. Linux and open source software is open for anybody to use and support, even Microsoft. They could of accomplished the same thing by just going "We won't sue Linux/OSS users and developers" and they would of gotten a ton of good will and a lot of positive attention and it would of been a hell of a lot cheaper.

They could of released 'Microsoft Linux' or supported, or started, any amount of open source software (such as Samba/AD integration, or document processing/conversion software, Exchange hooks for open standards, etc etc) that would have lead to very easy and efficient integration of Linux and Microsoft-based software. For what they spent on that stupid Novel agreement they could of actually done something that actually benefited their customers!

Microsoft has a lot to learn still. The basic idea of integration is probably good, but their execution leads a hell of a lot to be desired. These patent games aren't really helping anybody in a practical sense.

"Easy and efficient integration" - are you joking ?

Posted Aug 15, 2007 23:25 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

The goal of the Microsoft was, is and always will be exact opposite: make integration with non-Microsoft's technology as hard, inefficient and problematic as possible. From time to time technologies arise which Microsoft can not just ignore and is forced to support (TCP/IP, POSIX, HTML, Linux, etc). When demand from customers becomes unbearable Microsoft invents yet-another embrace-extend-extinguish scheme. Linux right now is in "emrace" stage. Microsoft does not see the way to "extend and extinguish" the core so it starts with periphery. OOXML and .NET right now, but more things will surely follow: only "MS-approved" companies will have the ability to interoperate freely - and these companies will be pressured to make them to threat to Microsoft.

Sorry, but I see no 'new era' here. The same old "Microsoft screws customers while showing 'good interoperability' show to them" we've seen for last 15-20 years...

Microsoft has a lot to learn still.

Microsoft knows its tricks pretty darn well already. He makes just enough noises to fool "Joe Average", but their "interoperability offers" are always poisoned in one way or another. This is by design.

The basic idea of integration is probably good, but their execution leads a hell of a lot to be desired.

They are doing enough to convince journalists and CEOs around the world that it works on interoperability but not enough for that work to actually matter. Again: this is by design. If true interoperability does happen - then it just means that Microsoft miscalculated. It happens, but not very often (it did poorly with HTTP, for example: most customers are not using IIS-only features)...

"Easy and efficient integration" - are you joking ?

Posted Aug 16, 2007 2:03 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]

> The goal of the Microsoft was, is and always will be exact opposite:
> make integration with non-Microsoft's technology as hard, inefficient
> and problematic as possible.

Microsoft isn't as evil as you make them out to be. Like any corporation, they're neither necessarily good nor evil, they're amoral. The only thing they care about is delivering as much value to their shareholders as possible (and making sure their executives get a handsome cut as well).

Currently, Microsoft holds a substantial monopoly in many major sectors of the computer industry. Any company would like to be a monopoly, and having achieved that, any company will make it its priority to grow, strengthen, and preserve that monopoly. Therefore Microsoft will continue, in the short term, to pursue the strategies that have worked for them (FUD, embrace and extend, etc) and generally they will try to crush Linux and Free Software and their corporate patrons.

But Microsoft is run by intelligent, pragmatic people who are certainly entertaining the possibility that that strategy might fail (and at this point, probably will fail). And they're developing strategies to survive and prosper as a corporation in a world where they no longer have their monopoly, and potentially in a world dominated by Free Software, where they can no longer make money selling software licenses. This isn't different from when IBM lost the war to control the microcomputers and found themselves in a situation where they were no longer a monopoly that could demand massive amounts of money for expensive, proprietary hardware. IBM dealt with that situation by remaking themselves as a technology services company and, finding that Free Software complemented such a strategy nicely, threw their weight behind Linux.

So I'm sure there are tons of strategies being discussed in Microsoft boardrooms on how to crush Linux, but there are also discussions in those boardrooms about how to live with, and maybe even benefit from Free Software, if it comes to a point where they are forced to do so. I think that's where the whole business with Microsoft Works is coming from. Certainly it wouldn't work to sell advertising if the products were truly Free, because their users would able to strip it out, but their new focus on advertising does demonstrate that they're considering how to continue to make money if people quit buying software licenses.

At the same time, they're probably looking at what Sun Microsystems has done. Sun was faced with the market for their in-house proprietary products being killed by Linux, and decided to change their strategy to become one focused on support and high end hardware, but unlike IBM and Novell, choose to maintain the relevance of their in-house software by freeing it rather than leaving it closed die while they entered the crowded Linux space. I think Microsoft is probably considering a situation in which they might be forced to free some of their core products to keep them relevant, and that's probably where the recent licenses are coming from.

The point is, I don't think you can look at everything a company as big and complicated as Microsoft does and see it as being part of one, unified (evil) strategy. Currently, and probably for some time, their primary strategy will be to try to crush Free Software and preserve their monopoly, but they are certainly exploring every possibility in case that doesn't work.

"Easy and efficient integration" - are you joking ?

Posted Aug 16, 2007 5:50 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

In large corporations how it works is that nobody actually runs them.

It's fiefdoms in fiefdoms in fiefdoms. Only small companies can be run successfully by a individual or group of individuals. Once you get to a certain size then the single top-down management style doesn't work properly.

So each section of Microsoft is ran by different people. Different people with different attitudes, different goals, different perspectives. They probably enjoy quite a bit of independent authority in order to allow efficient use of company resources, as much as a large corporation can do.

The role of very-top management and CEOs are basicly to set the tone of the company. They steer things in a very general manner and leave the details to other people. This could be the partially be the reason why Bill Gates stepped down from CEO a while ago.. maybe his management style doesn't allow him to let go. I don't know.

But I think it's entirely possible that there are some portion of Microsoft that sees open source as the only long-term solution for their company well being. Other people see this as a way to lose customers to cut-rate competitors and are doing their best to actively undermine the other group.

In any, even if I am completely wrong, the point I am trying to make is that it's a big mistake to treat Microsoft (or any other corporation) as a single entity... It's not. There is no grand vision, strategy, or anything of the sort... besides earning goals and expectaions spelled out for investors.

Microsoft strategies

Posted Aug 22, 2007 6:52 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

But Microsoft, unlike most technology companies, has been found out by the US Government and the European Commission to be abusing its desktop monopoly. The strategy followed was to spread "fear, uncertainty, doubt" and when possible to "embrace, extend, extinguish", as documented by the courts. You might as well say "Worldcom is not an evil company, it has many departments, it explores different strategies". Sorry but no, Worldcom was an evil company which broke the law big time. Similarly, Microsoft has broken the law repeatedly, and continues to do so.

As you very well point out, other companies have found different strategies to deal with the volatile nature of selling software licenses: diversification, focusing on services, mergers and acquisitions. OTOH Microsoft is a one-trick pony which when forced to compete has always followed the same strategy. If they fail to do so this time with Linux I would blame it on poor execution, rather than corporate schizophrenia.