|
[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:
> > 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.
>
No doubt they were -- they allowed people to hang on to their legacy software
while migrating to a new environment. Here, we're talking about whether you want
to run legacy s/w under emulation, when you could do so natively on the same
hardware. I don't think emulation will be much in demand unless there are other
reasons like: (1) users dislike MS; (2) they have primary apps which run in Linux
and secondary stuff runs in emulated Win; or (3) MS costs too much, isn't stable,
etc. Where those primary apps are available and of high quality (Apache, Samba)
the world will do what it has to to run them. Otherwise, I don't see emulation as
competitive. I think you have a weak argument here.
>
> > > 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?
Most of my clients specifically say (when I ask them to install Word Perfect)
that they don't want to be bothered with document conversions -- they need to
correspond with vendors and customers and want to use MS Office because that's
what their vendors and customer use. Sure there is internal communication, and
that wouldn't matter, but these people want to be totally compatible with the
outside world, and damn the cost. As long as MS owns 95% of the office suite
market, I don't see where there's any reason to anticipate migration. Again, I
think you have a weak argument.
>
> > 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)?
Because of its ubiquity, most people just shrug and ignore the problems, saying
this is the price for being compatible. Very few people, once they learn how to
use and work around a bad product feel the need to learn a new one, even if it is
much better. That's my experience, YMMV.
> 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.
I see these decisions being made by non-technical types who look at: (1) cost;
and (2) is it what our competitors, vendors, customers use? It may be that some
indignant CIO / CEO will start the ball rolling -- it just hasn't happened yet.
And when it does, will they back down, saying "MS gave in to our demands for a
better product, so we won't switch"? And what concessions/"investments" will MS
agree to in order to prevent this?
> > > 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.
I beg your pardon! why is it NOT a valid example? My clients and some of my
vendors have software that is simply not available in the *NIX world, or is only
available at an outrageous price, compared to the windows-sibling-product. As I
said, but you omitted, MS Office has server-side enhancements that are only
available on Windows servers. What if later generation MS Office products are
even more tightly coupled to their own servers? Are you still going to say my
clients have free choice with no downside?
> 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.
Agreed on the i'net server side. But I'm still talking about the office software
side, which involves lockin of the type you haven't responded to, and probably
haven't experienced as often. Just because MS hasn't been able to impress the
i'net crowd with its monopoly doesn't mean that monopoly isn't still a powerful
force on the rest of business computing.
Tom
PS: Not to hit and run, but I probably won't have time for a while to respond to
the next round, if there is one.
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|