Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's statement about Solaris-based Hotmail (old)

[Adam Turoff <ziggy@panix.com>]

Tom wrote:
> By "compatibility with the rest of the world" I am thinking of several things:
> 
>     1. The rest of the world runs a Win OS and Win apps (mostly, not 
>        literally)

Then I would argue that it's not compatibility with the rest of the
world that MS gains, but compatibility with Windows that *NIX lacks.

There are three ways to attack this.  

First, for legacy apps, the issue of file formats is moot -- the only
way for non-Windows boxen to run windows software is through some sort
of emulation (VirtualPC, ABI's, etc.)

Second is drop-in replacement for Windows apps, like replacing MSOffice
with KOffice or somesuch.

The third way is to re-engineer.  Does your organization *REALLY* need
to be running some Netware based DOS client to do time tracking and
billing?  Is there nothing else that can fit into your workflow?

So, taking the long view, I'd say that the only troublesome point is
the first, and that really is a short term case of the third point.
That leaves the second point, which may not be valid today; given how
much effort is being spent here with the Gnome, KDE, Star Office, Corel
Applixware and other efforts, I'd bet against MSOffice being a hard
and fast requirement in the long term.

>     2. After UCITA is adopted (if it is) reverse-engineering will
>        become illegal, making it difficult or impossibly expensive for
>        a Star-Office or a Corel or Applix to be able to read/write the
>        Microsoft file formats, which will surely change for that very
>        reason.

Don't underestimate the power of the majority here.  

If a big customer (such as, say, the Texas school system or the US Navy)
were to demand otherwise, MS would adopt more open formats.  This
is hypothetical of course, but MS has been under a tremendous amount
of scruitny lately over the monopoly power it exerts through its file
formats...

Of course, MS has been promising to convert all of their file formats
to XML for 2 years now; Office2K is supposed to support that to some
degree today, but not by default.  Perhaps that's going to be coming
out for Office2.002K.

>     3. By virtue of its monopoly power, MS will always have some
>        leverage to define standards of one kind of another that can be
>        both closed and widely used.

Here I flat out disagree.  Since 1995, MS has been bit by the open 
standards bug and it has been bit bad.  Sure, they may use the standards
support in IE as a bludgeon against Netscape, but they are hyper-active
at getting new standards (like WebDAV) ratified and supported in an
open fashion.  So while the left hand of MS is trying to corrupt Java,
the right hand is living with ECMAScript.  Their monopoly power isn't
what it could be right now had Netscape not sprang into existence.

Proprietary standards they are trying to foist upon the net are being
examined very skeptically and right now seem to stay mostly unadopted.

> By "stability and robustness" I am, of course, referring to their
> previous products. My linux servers have been off my radar for so long,
> I don't know any more what's in them or how recently they've been
> patched -- they just run, and run, and run...
>
> But, even if Win2K is measurably LESS stable than Linux (ie needs
> monthly reboot) for MANY (some?) people that will be "good enough".  [...]

This is exactly the kind of argument that MS wants to define, such that
they win.  If you're talking about intranet servers, that's one
thing.  But we all know that the difference between an intranet server
and an internet server is simply the network configuration.

So, MS is trying to lull the networking public into a false sense of
accomplishment and security by defining "good enough" as something
that is as insecure or unstable as NT.  Being 20% better than NT isn't
any better, since it's still falling short.

This is a hard problem.  Look at how Amazon and Yahoo were brought 
down last week.  Even professional Unix admins mess up every so often.

> So, I'm talking about the Jerry Pournelle notion of "good enough", not
> any abstraction about perfection. 

That's just it.  Shifting the argument away from "minimum adequate
performance" into "good enough vs. perfect" is the problem here.  

For many uses, Windows/NT/etc. does not provide the bare minimum
requirements; other times it does.  But once the argument has
successfully shifted, those advocates of the better way (e.g.
linuxfolk) are forced to be defensive and address the 'overly perfect'
or 'overly pure' critiques, when perfection and purity aren't the issue.

> And while Linuxers will always strive
> for perfection, and may attain some level of it, there is a point way
> below that which will satisfy many people. I think Win2k has surpassed
> that point.

..satisfy many people for many uses.  I haven't played with Win2k, but
I suspect that there are some things that it just *can't* do well.  

Mike has pointed out deficiencies in Active Directory for small businesses.
I'm sure there are other things that Win2k won't do, even if it makes
a better effort than NT.  

All of that aside, what is Win2k doing *well*?  Why is Linux not an
option for these uses?

> Thanks for the civility of your response -- it's a pleasure to talk with you.

Anytime.

Z.


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -       http://plug.nothinbut.net
Announcements - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion   -   http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug