PeopleSoft: .Net is IT 'asbestos' (News.com) [LWN.net]

And the graf that makes that analogy make *sense* is:

Posted May 19, 2003 22:10 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

"Running enterprise software on a PC is a known bad thing. It's like asbestos," he said. ".Net is a home formula to make your own asbestos. PeopleSoft is absolutely convinced enterprise software should not be resident on PCs."

Nicely put, once you get the punchline.

PeopleSoft: .Net is IT 'asbestos' (News.com)

Posted May 20, 2003 6:41 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

I'll bite -- the difference is Galmer and Bates are FUD'ing a directly competitive with Linux (vis a vis their flagship OS), while PeopleSoft is an application provider built upon a foundation that an OS provides. The fact that PeopleSoft is so dramatically criticizing Windows & .NET carries a lot of weight.

However, there is a major caveat to this analysis: Microsoft is now targeting the lower end of PeopleSoft's markwet with its CRM product integrated with its eEnterprise product, both of which tout .NET technology (eEnterprise less so since it is a legacy application). PeopleSoft may well be spinning its own FUD to counter the attrition it expects.

Having seen the CRM product in production, while recognizing it is a Microsoft first release, it looks compelling. The price point is definitely competitive with PeopleSoft. If I were PeopleSoft, I'd probably be looking to distance myself as far away from Windows as possible, because it is clear MSFT won't be abandoning Windows anytime soon.

PeopleSoft: .Net is IT 'asbestos' (News.com)

Posted May 20, 2003 7:18 UTC (Tue) by kubrick (guest, #752) [Link]

MS keep moving into areas profitable for others and commoditising them to the point where it's at least initially cheaper to install MS stuff. Sure, it doesn't work quite as well at first, but companies seem to like the homogenisation, despite the monoculture this produces and the obligatory security problems this brings with it. (Security problems from being the most common target could also happen if one Linux distro became dominant, although with open source and open standards this is a whole lot less likely to happen.)

The main hope Linux and the *BSDs have is to cut Microsoft's income stream by providing a better product at a lower price -- better for whatever consumers value as better, of course. In other words, to beat Microsoft at their own game -- although in an ideal world the antitrust laws would have been consistently applied and this would stop Microsoft from using their monopoly in the OS arena to gain unfair advantage in other areas, which feeds back into the OS monopoly, etc.

I still think that rather than using emotive terms like "cancer" and "asbestos", CEOs should argue the issues with substantive and informed reasoning. Politicised soundbites won't convince me, and Conway is deriding the same behaviour that Gates & Ballmer were with the same ugly language.

asbestos != cancer

Posted May 20, 2003 16:08 UTC (Tue) by kokopelli (guest, #11341) [Link]

Yes, asbestos can cause lung cancer. But I don't think that was the point being made.

Asbestos was widely used at one time because it was cheap, easy to install, offered something of value (fireproofing), and was believed to be safe. Things like asbestos "safety" curtains solved a real problem in an era of literal limelights and wood construction without fire retardants.

But after a few generations we realized that asbestos was just as dangerous as the problems it solved... and it was now extremely expensive to remove because asbestos had been added to so many different products, often just for marketing purposes.

I think that was the point the author was making. .Net might seem cheap and good enough today, but in a few years you'll find it insufficient, far too costly, and expensive to remove because you'll quietly add other .Net products over time because you'll naturally want to maximize compatibility, even if there's no need for the applications to talk to each other.