|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's statement about Solaris-based Hotmail (old)
|
Adam Turoff wrote:
> 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.)
>
And we know how eager people are to run a kludge. This is Not a high-demand option,
when it's so much easier to go with the flow, unless emulation becomes as easy and
fast as native.
> Second is drop-in replacement for Windows apps, like replacing MSOffice
> with KOffice or somesuch.
There are some outfits who will accept this, but mostly those with serious budgetary
concerns. And, some of their users will complain every time some goofy Word document
containing graphs & graphics doesn't reproduce perfectly. This will be an option for
geeks, not for some of the business folk of the type in my client base. The first
problem with achieving this kind of compatability with MS is that they present a
moving target. The second is getting people to believe that the open source
community will always be able to stay up with it. There's a tremendous opportunity
for MS FUD here.
> 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.
I would never bet on ANYTHING for the LONG term. And, certainly MS is going to be in
interesting times with its high-priced office suite and new anti-pirating measures.
Many, many of my former clients run one copy for a whole office full of users --
either they will now spend a bundle, switch to an alternative, or risk getting
caught. It may even change popular opinion.
>
>
> > 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...
One of the problems here is that most of the polls I have seen show more public
sympathy for MS than your comment admits. Those of us who understand about their
monopoly power are decidedly in the minority. Depending upon UCITA, the unfolding of
events in the DOJ trial, and the spin on all of this, you could be right. But then
again, the sheeple might resist any further importuning of MS. I see it as a matter
of law, somewhat tempered by big customers and general public opinion. The UCITA law
will be on their side -- we'll have to wait and see about the big customers and
public opinion.
>
> 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.
If the internet were the only place for standards, I would agree. But UCITA, as an
example of the point I was making has MS making an end run around the legal
standards body that normally governs commerce law, and then pouring "zillions" into
the pockets of the state politicians needed to enact it. If it gets enacted, it will
be the single most powerful "standard" ever adopted, and it has the potential for
crippling all MS competitors, especially the open source guys. And this is only
their first shot at influencing legislation. Then, as you said, there's Java, Com vs
Corba, and anywhere else MS wants to corrupt sanity and good order.
>
> 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?
Well, lets talk about file & print servers. I have a number of clients who could and
should be running Linux boxen for this, but can't because some piece(s) of their
software now runs client / server, and the server portion will only run on a windows
server. I am thinking of three apps here, in particular: one of them ONLY installs
on MS SQL (I am pretty sure MS paid to make that happen) and the other two also
depend upon COM or DCOM or COM+ which means VMware is not a satisfactory performance
option. Then, there is Office 2000 which has numerous server-side enhancements which
can only run on a Windows server. MS is tightening the connections between their
apps and THEIR servers, meaning Linux will be uphill for some of this stuff. And, as
the man said "you ain't seen nuthin' yet".
As I said originally, I think AD is something of a hindrance to small/medium
businesses, plus it is my understanding that it is excruciatingly crazy to set up.
But, my brief experience with Win2K (plus the reviews now out there) say that it is
an order of magnitude better than NT, not just 20%. So, while these problems are not
insurmountable in many cases, MS is constantly adding new obstacles to be overcome.
Somewhere down the road, we'll know what's going to happen -- for now, nothing is a
sure thing except we can't let up or give up or celebrate total victory any time
soon.
>
> > 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
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|