|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's statement about Solaris-based Hotmail (old)
|
Tom wrote:
> Adam Turoff wrote:
> > 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.
Digital designed the Alpha architecture so that a new 64-bit CPU can run
old 32-bit VAX binaries. Apple did the same with the 68K->PowerPC migration.
Both of these emulation modes were quite highly demanded.
> > 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.
If that argument were true, then no one would have adopted Word, because
it didn't handle their WordPerfect documents properly, or just plain
behaved differently. (WordPerfect is still in heavy use with the legal
community; some tech columnists refuse to let their old copy of XYWrite
leave their computers.)
Migration happens. Microsoft isn't immune. Today, the migration
requires conversion of a lot of entrenched MSOffice users. But what
is the business need? Communicating, or communicating with Office
documents? If an office is a paper factory, and is exchanging files
internally (not externally), does it matter that the paper they produced
was defaced by Microsoft bits or KDE bits?
> 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.
That's what they want you to believe. Office productivity software
isn't supposed to make *them* rich, it's supposed to make *you* productive.
Today, that productivity hurdle includes conversion of MS document
formats. It doesn't need to. I frequently throw out old documents that
I'll never need again. Do you? Should you? Can you?
> > 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.
Irrelevant. How much of that public was surveyed on what word processor
they wanted to use before Word was foisted upon them? How many of those
Word users complain about how Word is buggier/stranger/more complex than
(insert-other-word-processor-here)?
These decisions are made at very high levels and will be re-evaluated
at very high levels. Public sympathy has no impact on the secretary
of the navy, the cio of Sun Microsystems or Citibank. And those large
organizations can make those decisions with or without the help of
the Justice Department.
> > 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. [...]
This is yet another example of "no one runs Windows better than Windows."
That's not a valid example.
If you choose a configuration where vendor lock-in is an issue, you're
not giving an example of how WinNT/Win2K is *better*.
I can develop a website that uses ASP, VBScript, IIS, MS SQL and Active
Directory. But I don't believe that anything that site does can't be
done (and done better) with PHP (or Zope or Midgard or Perl or ...),
with Apache (or AOLServer or ...), MySQL or Oracle ... and OpenLDAP.
Because I chose the easy way out with ASP, etc. (or because I believed
the marketing message from Microsoft, or didn't hear the non-existent
marketing message from the open source community, or I had better
documentation on how to use Microsoft tools, or I just didn't know
any better) I've got lockin. I've eaten my seed corn and it's going to
be painful to switch.
Had I gone the other way, I'd have a site I can take from Linux to
Solaris to NT to Win2K to AIX to BSD and back again. I've sown my seed
corn wisely, and it didn't cost much (more/less) than the alternative.
-- Adam
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|