TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Interesting article from Linux today
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/8186.html
The War
Jul 30, 1999, 01:32 UTC (34 Talkbacks)
(Other stories by Paul Ferris)
[ The opinions expressed by authors on
Linux Today are their own. They speak only
for themselves and not for Linux Today. ]
By Paul Ferris, Staff Writer
Listening to a lot of journalists and their
criticisms of the Linux community you can hear
clearly one side of a very well founded
complaint. They claim that the "Linux
community" is a belligerent mass of open source
activists.
Well, they are right about one thing. The flaming
must stop. Members of our community should
never, ever simply trash a group of people
because they have made a different decision
than the one we would have made.
That said, however, I must also point out that it's
just as crazy to simply think that the belligerent
masses are at it because being an Open Source
fanatic is some kind of perverse fun.
There's a lot of anger in this mob. It isn't some
kind of freak accident that made them all appear
to be a bunch of delusional paranoid operating
systems fanatics.
This is happening because for the past 10 years
there has been a war going on. They did not
choose this fight. It was chosen for them by a
company in Redmond Washington. Read the
Halloween documents if you don't believe it.
Read VCNET's Boycott Microsoft
compendium if you are still doubtful in any way.
The war is happening because one company
cannot rest until all competitors are vanquished.
Worse than that, the prisoners of war must be
killed as well. They must bury the survivors.
Never mind that it's not sporting - it fits their
idea of "competition". Never mind that they
want to maintain their monopoly status, even
though they want to deny that they have one.
Even in the face of their own witnesses during
the recent trial admitting that Microsoft has a
monopoly.
Microsoft does not "play" by any set of fair
"rules". If it can win, even by "cheating", it will
do so.
And that's the part that's dead wrong. That's the
part that brings a lot of people to any technology
that is not Microsoft. But Open Source software
is not about hating Microsoft, as I've stated
before.
This is to further clarify that position, and to
realign it for some people who think that maybe
we should just "all get along".
Getting along, that entails a lot of things. For one
thing, standards that are open. Truly open where
everyone can see, and use, and use together.
Those standards, they must be embraced. That
means embraced, and not extended without a
decision by committee.
This one company I've mentioned, it can't seem
to live by those rules. It must come out with
"extended" versions of open standards, or
broken ones that causes competitors products
to crash, or simply not work.
Joe Public is often times ignorant of standards.
People often wrongly assume that the Microsoft
Word ".doc" file format is an open standard.
Sending .doc files as email attachments tends to
make Joe Public think that if he cannot open that
file, he must get with the times. He must
embrace "The Standard". Joe Public doesn't
realize the difference between a new "open"
standard that requires some new program, and a
proprietary one pushed by a monopolist. He
really should care, but it's beyond him.
Microsoft will use this trick to their advantage
over and over. The only way to stop it currently
is to hope that Joe Public will see benefits from
interaction between several different operating
systems, such as OS/2, Beos, Mac, Linux and
Windows.
If Joe Public could see what was going on he
would be up in arms. But remember, this guy is
usually counting pennies at Best Buy, and
thinking that it's really cool that all the systems
there have "Windows 98 included for free". He
doesn't understand much more than that.
Perhaps it's time to legislate fairness in the
operating systems community. Perhaps we
should draft a set of laws dictating that if an
operating system is going to sell at all, it will
have to execute a certain code base based upon
an open API that everyone agrees upon.
Perhaps if a program is going to write a certain
class of file, say a word processing document, it
will have to conform to some kind of agreed
upon open file format. If a web browser is to be
offered it will have to read only a certain class of
HTML, no more, no less. No extensions that
don't work well with everything.
Is that what has to be done here to make the
playing field level? I shudder at the thought. That
would be wrong as well. But I'd vote for it if it
meant that the beast in Redmond would be
reigned in. Clearly, they can't abide by open
standards. It doesn't fit with their war mentality.
It would be a shame to legislate it because the
unwritten rules of inter-operability were broken
over and over.
We didn't draw these battle lines - we live by a
totally different set of rules in fact. Take Linux
and FreeBSD for example. There is a lot of
competition between those crowds. Do you see
them making different competing standards for
TCP/IP so that the two systems won't work
well together? For one thing, no it's not
happening, and for another, no, it's not the way
we work.
Our cards are face up on the table. We are not
fighting this war this way. We refuse. By the
very definition of our methods, we will not fight
in this manor.
But to think that just because we do things this
way, that we will win the war, that's just plain
crazy. To stand idle, and watch as the carnage
from viral, proprietary software mounts daily.
To watch business make the trip to the
Microsoft store like a bunch of addicts visiting
the local crack house without saying something,
that goes totally against my grain.
No, I will not ignore the war. I did not invent
this war, it was done for me. It was done daily
as my better informed decisions were
over-ridden by others who simply did not
understand. The "network effects" of Windows
NT cannot be ignored. If we do not push back
the line, and at least hold our own in this fight, it
will not be worth it.
Microsoft is not in this for tiddly winks. It's big
bucks if they kill us off. Open Source software
provides the last hope for those that want
freedom to innovate in the field. I know what I
speak of here, I am one of those people.
I am happy that things are going our way, but
skeptical that the Open Source revolution is just
going to "happen". For one thing, that's not how
we got where we are today.
Today, you can order Linux pre-loaded from
several vendors. Today, there are certification
programs being discussed. Today, IBM, HP,
Compaq and some other big names are pushing
Linux. That would not have happened so
quickly if it had not been for an anti-trust trial,
like it or not.
Like it or not, the converse would be true as
well - Linux probably would have been
pre-loaded easily last year. Imagine if no one
company had an illegal monopoly in the Intel
hardware space. Imagine a wildly competitive
desktop world where Windows, OS/2, Beos,
DR-DOS/Gem or Geos all shared similar pieces
of the pie.
Yes, I'm out of my cotton-picking mind here.
Some wild crack I'm smoking isn't it? NO! It
could have happened in a less cut-throat
environment.
In a less monopolistic environment, Linux would
have been taking market share last year easily. I
think it's pretty obvious that most of the systems
would still be servers - but there would have
been less hassle with OEMS. Read some of the
trial testimony, and you immediately get the
reasons why. Any OEM that dared to load
something Billy didn't like got instantly penalized.
They got accused of not "respecting" the
Microsoft Mob. Their contract could even be
canceled if they didn't play by Microsoft's rules.
It's amazing what litigation can do. Today, some
vendors are emboldened by the new-found
power of choice they have. Today, you can
order Linux pre-loaded. Those vendors know
that if they get threatened, they can simply pick
up the phone to the Department of Justice, and
relay the data. The results for Microsoft will be
less than favorable.
Too bad Microsoft can't just "be nice" in the first
place. To bad we cannot simply "all get along" in
this scenario. Too bad we have to defend our
natural right to survival in this creepy world.
Wake up, that's the way it is.
Where is Intel in all of this? Intel has made
investments in RedHat software, and there are
indications that they are working on the Linux
port to the Merced processor. But recent
indications of interaction between Microsoft and
Intel show that they are still betting on the
"Wintel" monopoly.
It's my feeling that here they could really care
less if we win or lose our battle. If Windows
wins, Intel wins. Remember, the vast majority of
Microsoft O/S shipping today is Windows 9X
(DOS based) technology. That technology is
tied to Intel architecture strongly. If Linux gets a
decent market share, and somehow takes over
the desktop, where would that leave Intel?
Linux makes it easier for hardware portability to
occur. The only reason that Intel is taking an
interest in Linux, in my opinion, is because they
cannot afford not to.
Face it, none of the Intel-based Unices have
made the splash that Linux has. Face it,
Windows NT is pretty bad as a server platform.
Intel cannot afford not to have Linux in some
regards as a server, but they would probably
not like it to make it to the desktop. On the
desktop, suddenly the playing field becomes
extremely leveled and their cash cow - people
buying Windows 98 - it's not the sure thing it
used to be.
We didn't, as I've repeated many time here -
choose this fight. It's been chosen for us. The
battle lines are drawn, but we didn't draw them.
This isn't just about being nice, this is about
having the tools that you need to do your job.
The tools that help you enjoy it as well.
In some ways this is aimed at Bob Metcalf. Yes
Bob, some people are rather emotional about
Linux. They are up against a wall, and they don't
have the option, like you do, of sitting in the
grand stands and saying in effect, "this will be an
interesting fight". These people CARE, and
maybe they don't know how to say it right.
For every one of them, there are probably 50
Linux users who care just as much, are
level-headed, and not making anywhere near as
much noise. I know the loud ones make us look
bad, but I can understand clearly where they are
coming from.
In my job, daily, I must provide solutions for my
customers. I find that with Windows, those
solutions are costly, bloated, and typically go
against open standards if they in any way involve
Microsoft. This isn't because I'm some kind of
crazy open source bigot. This is because I know
what I can do with Windows NT and what I
can do with Unix or Linux. It would be easy for
some people to forget what they know about
Unix, and sell a Microsoft solution at all cost to
the customer. I cannot. I care.
The Linux solutions, they clearly provide
degrees of freedom not found elsewhere. They
definitely provide a degree of quality not found
with Microsoft products. In a world where the
choices are being choked by perceived costs,
Linux provides a breath of fresh air.
Clearly I'm not in the grandstands here, I'm in
the thick of the fight.
One of my old bosses used to say to me: "Paul,
just because you are paranoid, that doesn't
mean that someone isn't out to get you." Well,
the Linux community, it's paranoid all right. They
have seen the dead bodies of their predecessors
on the field. They know what evil they are up
against. Most of them do anyway.
I know I do. It's wrong to flame someone for
their opinion. But to think that it's a lunatic fringe
that is causing all that hatred, that's just as
wrong. To ask for a fair fight and mention
Microsoft in the same sentence, is that not
insanity as well?
Enough of the unfair punches. On both sides.
Look at Microsoft and Java, er Kaffe. Look at
the way they are attempting to embrace and
extend HTML with Office 2000. Look at the
way they want to control Perl so it's got features
not found on Linux.
We owe it to our peers to explain to them the
better ways to do things. It should be done with
a clear head. It must be done.
It would be beautiful if we could all just choose
the operating system that best fitted the job, and
not worry about market share, or whether or
not we are gaining or loosing in some area.
Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't it be really cool
if you could just go to work and say to your
co-workers: "Hey, my NT station keeps locking
up, I'm loading Linux and the company's apps.
You guys can keep using NT if you like, I don't
care."
Right.
Like it or not, we are at war. Wake up and
smell the Kaffe. Sound the alarm, but do it with
a clear head. And don't be lulled by kind words
about us all "just getting along". I'd like to see it
someday, but judging from past experience, it's
going to be quite a while, if ever, that it involves
Microsoft.
Mail this story
Printer version
Latest Headlines:
Slashdot: Bruce Parens
Answers Open Source
License Questions
(Jul 30th, 22:50 UTC)
The Machineofthemonth:
Video4Linux How-To
(Jul 30th, 22:49 UTC)
GRE First Public Release
(Jul 30th, 22:46 UTC)
LinuxPower: Are the Smaller
Distributions a Force for
Good or Bad?
(Jul 30th, 21:56 UTC)
ZDNN: Open letter to Steve
Case
(Jul 30th, 20:06 UTC)
Return to today's headlines.
Comments from readers: (Read all comments on one page.)
There are 34 talkbacks posted.
Scientist - Playing with fire
Sam Taylor - Well Thought out Article
El Perugruyo Amazonico - We will win!
Clay Berlo - Eloquent Agitation
Charles Hixson - Laws
Bryan B - Your emotion is admirable
Arthur - How to win the war
Mack the Penguin - The war?
shadowstrider - The war
dinotrac - Linux doesn't need the government to interfere!
Dan - Open Standards
John Smith - The silent majority is with you....
Steve Baker - Linux gave me back my computer.
jerry m - $3.5 Billion/year Propaganda War
Golden Eagle - Miscelaneous Thoughts
Ian Baird - Government Interference Isn't Cool
Greg Mildenhall - What dinotrac said
Greg Mildenhall - It's _not_ about Microsoft
Thomas Wickline - Live free or Die
Elvis - Dan: proprietary protocols and file formats
rjwp - re. shadowstrider
geoff lane - linux and the desktop
joe - TeamOS2
lukaku jones - eventually..
Christoph - Market forces and de facto standards...why should they
do different?
Bill Rugolsky - Why I despise Microsoft.
Narsi - Fine let us agree on something simple here
Rainy - Be a zealot or not?
Carl Stafford - Re: shadowstrider is absolutely correct!
Brian Idzik - Difficult not to be angry
JCA - The roots of the war
Jason Fletcher - Re: rjwp, re: shadowstrider
Carl Stafford - Re: Re: rjwp, re: shadowstrider
Reaperx1 - Give Me Liberty! - Or Give Me Death...
Post your comments using the form below.
Your Name:
Your Email Address:
cc: (will also send this talkback to an E-Mail address)
Subject:
Comments:
[ Return to Today's Headlines | Top of Story ] (Posted by dave)
All times are
recorded in UTC.
Copyright ©1999
by Linux Today
(webmaster@linuxtoday.com)
Linux is a
trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Powered by Linux
2.2.9 and Apache 1.3.6.
Linux Today is a corporate
member of Linux International.