| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft sings a new tune on Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 14:41 EST/19:41 GMT | News Source: Forbes.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft executive Martin Taylor's schedule is packed with meetings like the one in June when he met with representatives from French drugmaker Aventis in his Redmond, Wash. office. Aventis has tied together groups of computers running not Microsoft's operating system but the freely available Linux. These high-performance clusters can analyze proteins at blazing speeds. "That's great for Linux," Taylor said cheerily, at the time. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:49:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/8/2004 1:33:46 AM |
|
#4 Exactly! From what I see the Linuces suffer from a lot of "me, too - only we're cheaper and if you want to, your CFO can change the code himself, or herself..." The CFO promptly replies, "Uh..no. I have enough to do, thank you." As for cheaper? Hardly - not supported on any balance sheet I have seen for any company we have worked for, and trust me, they are looking at costs. The "me, too" or "us, too" part is all that is left and that is where the Linuces are weakest - in unified management, tools, applications, and entertainment - none of it exists to as evolved degree as it does in commercial software and especially not to the degree it does in Microsoft software. Now, I don't have any problem at all with the Linuces and OSS working their model and evolving it - any disagreements with it we have aren't about that - they are about the simply inaccurate and favorable comparisons to commercial software.
So where is the innovation? Well, one could argue that the concept of OSS is innovative - provided sharing information, code and ideas were new or exclusively present in OSS... They aren't however, new or exclusive. One might argue that sharing source code is innovative, but that has been going on since source code has exsited and in my opinion, to a greater degree many decades ago than it does now. So, we are left with what? What innovation, exactly? See, what I think is this, OSS "is" viable; however, it had better stop focusing on Microsoft and other commercial houses. This is what humors Mr. Gates...that focus. What any company needs to do to succeed is "Drive their own car" - so to speak...OSS and Linuces advocates need to focus on what people and businesses "do" with technology and software and then build something "innovative" that people will buy from them. It is simply unwise for any business to base its buiness model on supporting an undifferentiated set of products - no matter what they are. Until OSS produces something unique and compelling enough to attract people willing to spend money, then OSS/Linuces will only attract former *nix users shopping based upon price comparision with Sun and other commercial Unices hardware and software - which has failed against Microsoft's unified products. |
| #2 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/8/2004 5:07:57 AM |
|
Innovation is not synonymous with creation, though it could be. Don't make that mistake. People patent software because that idea is new. Innovation isn't necessarily new. If I add a toaster to my car that is innovation, while neither the toaster nor the car were a new idea.
In Redhat's case they patent software that is owned by redhat, or created by redhat, or the idea came from redhat. They do this to protect their interests as they say, and the patent system prevents a new idea (note I'm not using the term "innovative" but rather the proper term "new" or "new idea") from being owned by two companies. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/8/2004 6:44:30 AM |
|
Arrrggghhh...
Language. The article, its author and many others assert the discovery of some new information revealing Microsoft's "new" or "revised" position opposite OSS and the Linuces - based upon the false perception that Microsoft is in any way concerned, or threatened by OSS, or Linux, in some general way. This is preposterous. Microsoft is a lot more honest than that - as is a reflection of the sense it has of itself and its value to consumers of all types. This is reflected in every thing the company does and all of its software. Innovation. In the context of software's role in technology, where technology is regarded as that which either enhaces human performance or the human condition, is very simply, constantly seeking to do more and improve both - software is just the means. Innovation is not tied to a process, or the language used to express any given process. In this context, "patents" are a) irrelevant, and b) simply punctuating the innovative process. Microsoft isn't influenced by OSS or the Linuces as it regards its interpretation of innovation. It doesn't compete with OSS or the Linuces, nor does it care to. Microsoft can and does compete with other companies. Microsoft isn't concerend with OSS or the Linuces any more than it is with the means by which electricity is generated. If however it was a utility, and a competitor, "Red Hat Power, Inc." produced electricity, it would compete with it. Microsoft will compete against Red Hat, Novell and others and likely beat them - where the contest is not based upon a theocracy, but on the value of its products as aggregated for each customer - be it a single computer and what one can do with it, or a network of computers in any configuration and what may be done with them - to enhance human performance and or the human condition. As always, the contest will be decided based upon the observable and measurable value that is, and can be delivered to the customer. Microsoft has always defeated its competitors because while they focus on Microsoft, Microsoft has been and always will focus on the customer, the customers' needs and the customers' aspirations. This is why Mr. Gates has always marvelled at how very simply stupid his competitors have been - these are the mistakes its competitors cannot resist, or escape from. Look at each of Hal's posts - they are all based upon comparisons. Look carefully at those of others and I hope a few of mine - they are all based upon what is being done with technology and software for people and businesses - and certainly for businesses mindful of the people in them. I do not know how many times these simple facts have been spelled out, or the tragedy it is that OSS' including the Linuces' focus on its competitors is. OSS must focus on the customer - with innovative solutions not theocratic exortations. Since it began as a theocracy, has remained a theocracy, and will like remain one - a "movement" it isn't worth competing with - that would be pointless and not produce a single line of code that would be regarded as valueable by any customer. |
| #4 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/8/2004 5:39:15 PM |
|
Interesting points but I still can't argue the idea that OSS steals.
...and to be clear, sure -- there will always be OSS but the patent issues are with closed source derivatives of OSS, but OSS is created simply through the emulation or duplication of technologies. I'd truly like to see an OSS patented idea. Bear in mind I realize Hal (and others) will argue a bazillion different ways that OSS will never go away. I don't care, nor does it matter. What does matter is that companies will never invest (people need to make money, remember?) in OSS technologies when there is no return on that investment that is protected and owned by that company. OSS will always survive but it's very nature makes it second fiddle to closed source, imho. (opinion!) |
| #5 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/8/2004 8:45:17 PM |
|
No, you'd have to have emulated something else first, and then released it as OSS.
Exactly. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/8/2004 10:38:07 PM |
|
The tragedy is for OSS, or anyone who follow it as a "movement."
So long as that is the mentality, then it will remain limited. For MS and other commercial houses, and for those making decisions about what to do - howe to evolve, that tragedy is in any comparison at all - there simply isn't the basis for it. You still have not addressed some key questions for us - namely, what is your position regarding innovation in the context of what OSS or any technology does or has the potential to do for people and business. Where is the innovation? "Outside of OSS itself" I don't see OSS as being in any way innovative in that regard - as I have stated, the sharing amongst professionals in the PDC has always been there - same is true of the teaching and research universities - always has been. So my question remains as it would always be for any client opposite any vendor or SW house: "Where is it, how does it run, and how will it benefit my companies and my people?" That is the same question posed to MS or any house. This post was edited by lketchum on Sunday, August 08, 2004 at 22:49. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/9/2004 12:33:16 AM |
|
OK. Brass Tacks.
Let's do this, an exercise - let's break down a case study and do a comparison. First, without Microsoft's leadership, software and tools, none of what I am about to use as an example would be possible for the small business I am about to use as an example. Without Microsoft's willingness and unique ability to partner with small companies like mine, neither we or the company used as an example would have been able to deliver a solution, or have access to one. Hal/others, this is what I am looking for - an exercise; and example where OSS is used to innovate. Using these examples, we might then form a business analysis to determine which is the better value, and or even more fun to have participated in. Case: Ultimate Distributors, Inc. - a small boutique distributor of hard to find and highly sought after fine wines and spirits in the state of GA. They are a collection of passionate people, who had an idea - turn their passion into a business serving the interests of like minded, wineries, distilleries, boutique restaurateurs, retailers and consumers. Ultimate Distributors [UD] is self-funded and had a limited budget; however, their needs were very diverse and they had/have an absolute requirement to deliver onlt the best, using only the best opposite a high-tough and discriminating customer base. Complicating this is the fact that UD has very few people and they require a fully automated solution if the small group is to be able to focus on its customers and not running the mechanics of its business. Ok - with the "requirement" loosely articulated, the detailed requirements presented some unique challenges. Despite such a limited budget, UD actually required(s) a full up Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP] solution with native Electronic Data Interchange [EDI], sales force automation, warehouse automation, dynamic supply chain management, automated Customer Relationship Management [CRM], eCommerce executed as distributed online order processing from either secure public, or entirely private workspaces, and fully integrated finance and accounting and business reporting that is both GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley Compliant and equally compliant with all tax laws as they pertain to the application, recording and payment of GA Per Liter Sales Taxes for alcoholic beverages - and they need to be able to do all of this from any place in the world with people who have amlost no knowledge of technology and or business operations in this space. Let's get nuts. UD had a sub-50K budget for all hardware, all software and all services and less than 60 days to get it done. Worse, they had not written down a single process - not even an organizational chart. "What is the Net Nut?" We and UD did it all - we succeeded and we did it under budget - using Microsoft Software and Microsoft Tools. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/9/2004 12:33:48 AM |
|
The solution:
Supporting UD Local and Regional Needs. 1 x W2K3 Server running RRAS, DHCP, WINS, AD DNS, in an Active Directory Domain. 3 x Custom Libertech Workstations running XP Professional and Office 2003 Professional 4 x Toshiba Tablet PC's running XP Pro Tablet PC Edition and Office 2003 1 x HP/Compaq Tablet PC for the warehouse with a UPC Code printer, hand-held UPC Code scanner on a wheeled cart with a 1200 Watt UPS to give all day battery life to the Tablet. 2 x Wireless Access Points and one Repeater bridge in a secure configuration that bridges only to the wired network 3 x Network Printers 5 x PCS Cards for Wide-Area Access to the "UD Enterprise" Supporting Messaging: Custom Exchange 2003 OL configured using RPC over HTTPS for secure MS MAPI access to Exchange, Mobile Device Support. Supporitng Collaboration: A custom online office using Windows Sharepoint Services and custom web parts. Supporting the UD Enterprise: A custom secure .NET ERP application running over SSL, only and in our datacenter on W2K3 Server and SQL 2000 SP3a - it has to be seen to be believed :) :) :) [I have a great crew!!!] VS .NET, Front Page 2003, T-SQL, and ASPX with mostly C# and VB.NET in the code-behind. All running on custom Libertech rack mount servers that are shared by many small clients. Supporting the UD Online Presence and customer facing order processing store: A custom dynamic website where content is driven by the automated inventory control system in real time. Supporitng EDI to banks, vendors, wineries and distilleries: Custom XML Web Services, SOAP 1.0 and the .NET Framework Supporting Training and user Support: MS Office Live Meeting and Remote Desktop Protocols used for Remote Assistance and applications sharing. UD has a fully automated end-to-end solution that allows for full order process in a matter of seconds. Pick-Pack-Pull and Shipping are all automated FILO, and integrated with route planning using an integrated sub-set of MS Map Point 2004 and the MP SDK. All Finance and Accounting and the reporting of the same, are all fully automated and a simple function of normal user work - all behind the scenes. Please see www.ultimatedistributors.com [Designed only for MS IE 5.0 or higher] UD Enterprise Log in at, https://warehouse.ultimatedistributors.com/EnterpriseASP/home/loginform.aspx [Designed only for MS IE 5.0 or higher] Working opposite an example, let's discuss details and engage in a meaningful discussion revealing the merits of using Microsoft Software as opposed to any other software. We embraced UD's challenges and succeeded. Microsoft's software and position as a partner provided us and UD with the tools we need to build this custom solution. I maintain that this is what Microsoft means by "Innovation" - where nine (9) guys serving 524 companies ranging from the top fortune 40 all the way down to companies like UD with six (6) employees, can do anything we set out to do. This small example illustrates what Microsoft has enabled and what it means to hundreds of millions of people all over the world - enhancing human performance or the human condition. |
| #9 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/9/2004 1:29:16 AM |
|
Mr. Ketchum: Wow... just wow. GREAT work.
Hal: Any case will argue the point. The reality of most corporate environments is that we want something that works, we don't want to spend forever coding it from OSS where it is unproven in the corporate space, lacks collaborative elements that tie in to other products seamlessly, and have a supportable backbone structure. So when I was asked about building Exchange 2000/2003 for my workplace, I had the opportunity to recommend Sendmail. Guess which one I picked. It had absolutely nothing to do with initial costs. It had do to with getting the job done as best as possible -- with Exchange I could offer collaborative services via email, a robust client, seamless web services, simple and supportable plugins for code via public folders and data store, Office usability, Sharepoint viability, easier mgmt, easier deployment, etc. Noone is arguing that you can't do it with open source. But not only is open source fairly non-innovative (not bleeding edge), it tends to be a lot more difficult to make viable with half the features, which in turn makes it twice as costly to maintain. Look at the support for "commercial" unices (redhat as a good example) and see that the support paradigm is actually less lengthy and more costly than Microsoft, on any platform. If you don't buy their platform, sure you can do it yourself ... but why? Then you have to innovate yourself, and how much will that cost you? I've told my boss that we can hire a single 200k programming god to run everything in our company on unix, or we can hire 5 50k MCSEs to do the same thing (maybe a tad more but that's the general idea). In an instant he takes the MCSE route. Why? You can replace them. The 200k godlike programmers do exist, and they can do everything with unix, and make it wash my socks if you wanted them to, but they are next to impossible to find and really hard to keep. And besides, true OSS would have to release everything back to the community, so the company gains nothing by investing that much in technology that must be custom written to suit. Now you could look at the example above and say "but there are custom apps! no fair!" ... The difference is that with Unix most apps need to be custom built from scratch. With .NET and other MS programming technologies, tie ins to databases, interfaces, etc are almost so easy even I could write them (and I've long since given up VB over systems engineering). In summary, lketchum gave an example with dollar figures. If your only retort is "google" then I'll say that's not viable since it probably cost several million dollars to develop and still has problems... besides, in order for it to be OSS I'd like to see the source code for Google. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/9/2004 2:11:21 AM |
|
#26 - Dead on right - it is about all of those things at once - opposite the question of which is the better value.
Making a point though is not what I have been addressing. It's about focus - on the customer from the perspective of the business people/technologists delivering the solution. And # 25, before I get into what I mean, and how the example I used has been leveraged operationally, "yes" OSS can do SSL, but it can't do RPC over HTTPS - not that I am aware of - so, people cannot be in a car between Anniston, or Birmingham and Atlanta and directly and securely connect to a remote Exchange as a full MAPI Client and as a consequence, the connections we used across all elements in the solution would be a lot harder - for example, connecting a messing in the application by a GUID to a customer order, within the customer profile and have it appear in Outlook, too - making it possible to service client requests a lot easier. That is only one example of what is very difficult in OSS because there is no Dynamic Systems Initiative or Bridging Framework to build on - not one that is nearly as clear or profitable that I am aware of. As for alternate browsers? We ask why? No one, and I mean no one, using an alternate browser has ever bought anything from either my company or any company I have done work for. They just don't like them and neither do I. Beyond that, XP SP2 changes it all - it is over as far as I am concerned regarding security - Microsoft is on top of that and will stay on it - it is part of their culture now and will remain so. Back to business. Hal, here is the real important part. The same solution as above does full up GL and P&L for an infinite amount of companies - what that means is, I can license an instance to one of the 60 CPA' I do work for and they can do all the accounting they need for the clients in their books - but at the same time, I can also bolt on each of those clients' entire business processes. It also has project management and a job forecasting engine, which will be ported for an engineering company doing survey work for the major wireless carriers. Because I designed its inventory items to also be service items as part of complex assemblies -yes that is there, too [assemblies], service organizations can use it, too - right along side inventory items they sell as part of the delivery of service. Even major changes can be made by end-users - making customization easy, and set up fast. Because it is so transportable and runs using common Microsoft Servers, it can be deployed very easily - as object code with encrypted sub and stored procedures at the DB. Now, here is my point, "Innovation is about what one does." Its not an idea, or a doctrine. Certainly, solutions can and are being made with OSS. That does not mean they are innovative. Innovation in this context is about much more than that - in this case it may be about how many simultaneous models one can execute upon and how quickly - against limited resources. This is what we do all day/night, every day. Because Microsoft built a Framework and tools that it makes accessible to all, it is not only possible to do, but affordable for clients and profitable for companies like mine. That is the difference and why Linux is irrelevant in the context of this thread. MS and certainly not our group cares about OSS or will compete with it. MS has stated it will compete with companies like Red Hat and Novell. Back to #25 - how many ref zones have to created using OSS? How many? HTTPS - paaaleeeeze lololol one site, one cert? - try thousands. How many listeners have you set up under it? It's just not the same and any example of "us, too" just does not carry a lot of weight. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/9/2004 2:36:37 AM |
|
Hal, show me one MAPI mail client implementation executing RPC over HTTPS that connects to Exchange that uses OSS. Show me how that same client connects across a suite of productivity applications that themselves are connected as a system, or individually to group and team productivity applications that end users can create and that are also infused with visual reporting tools that are driven by the normal work and processes as executed in line of business applications. Show me the interfaces that present individually relevant views of all of that and show me where it can be done as quickly or affordably than it is done using Microsoft software and .NET/Tools.
Yes, one can use OSS and commercial solutions side by side - we do - making up for all the missing bits in OSS with Microsoft solutions for clients running proprietary applications built on OSS libraries [dumb, but hey, it's their investors money]. The question for me remains, why use them? Why use OSS? I just have not been able to find its value. |
| #12 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/9/2004 3:06:33 AM |
|
I think there was a point lost in there somewhere.
People like Halcyon are advocating that OSS will never die, it has uses, etc. True! So? Its uses are like old garage sales. Everyone can get anything if you look hard enough, but it's not as good as the shiny model in the store, or supported, ...maybe... OSS can become the framework for closed source applications, true also. So? This has nothing to do with Linux, ironically. That's non-platform-specific, since there are OSS GPL-ified systems in place for Windows as well. Microsoft is only threatened by Linux because it can potentially offer equal services at lesser quality. Do you really think Apache is more robust than IIS? Or Samba more robust than active directory? It's misinformation that is being pitched to vendors -- that OSS solutions are cheaper. The reality is that it's mostly a facade... it's cheap because it has cheap value that requires significant backend investment to fully realize. For me, that's easy to see. For the large market share of people and companies out there, it's simply agonizingly painful to build a competitive robust platform on unix to serve web and databasing needs with a minimal budget on Unix. You try telling some mom'n'pop shop that "Linux is free, OSS is free, here's your hardware and internet connection, oh btw if you want someone to actually extend the free solutions to meet your needs it'll cost you 10x more than Windows." However, as any good company would do, Microsoft is treating Linux seriously, and making sure that people realize what the reality is when you buy into the "free" Linux pitch. That's why you see them paying more attention to Linux. "Know your enemy"... TCO: it's not just a buzzword. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/9/2004 3:07:48 AM |
|
Hal there are a lot of alternative commercial and OSS messaging solutions - it's just that none of them are as good as Exchange or as flexible in terms of using it for more than just email.
I recall many alternatives and also when Exchange was well behind. MS improved it as well as the client and how to integrate it. In other words, "MS competed" and own a lot of business. OSS can do that, too - they just have to and focus on that and not on MS. That is the real message in this thread. |
| #14 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/9/2004 5:01:46 AM |
|
Same could be said about using OSS as opposed to relying solely on proprietary software, depending on what you're using. Why does it have to be one or the other? Will eliminating either OSS or proprietary software have a benefit?
No. OSS should remain. But every time the word "Linux" comes up, it becomes an OSS debate. I'm simple: I like to earn money. One time in my past (true story) I had a choice of working with Unix (Linux wasn't really around in any major way at the time) vs Windows. What little I did know about Unix -- FreeBSD at the time -- was that all the coders were paid incredible amounts of money, but the jobs were sparse. And Microsoft by comparison, jobs were more readily available but at a lesser pay. I chose Microsoft because I didn't like the concept that ultimately no company invested in a product: Noone "bought" FreeBSD. They exploited it for commercial gain. It was a product that once set up "just ran" and "ran well" and when my job was over, usually I was minus income because I'd be looking for the next guy to sucker into the "free" OS. Seems backward doesn't it? Well my mentality is simpler nowadays: Economies don't revolve around free systems. I totally agree that Linux will always exist. But I do not see a system in the future where companies choose free operating system infrastructures with no support and no guaranteed quality assurances. It just isn't in the future. I totally see home users using that paradigm. Considering that the desktop is Microsoft's bread and butter, this is why they take Linux very seriously as a threat. Considering that, it's easy to see how MS is challenging that (see earlier posts about how VS.NET is making development on windows incredibly compelling). Paid programmers drive the economy. Unpaid programmers don't contribute jack. We're not at "star trek" yet. The other final quasi-poke along those lines that I'll make at OSS is that I simply wouldn't be compelled to write for it, even if it had VS.NET-quality tools. The fact is, if I write a great program, I'd like to earn some money. Call me crazy, but I got mouths to feed. :) It doesn't get much simpler than that. That's why most (like me) believe OSS is behind the technology curve, emulating closed source "for profit" endeavors, and largely hobbyist vs commercial. |
| #15 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/9/2004 12:26:16 PM |
|
Your point being?
Not everyone has venture capital or risk to buy into the OSS or other open source solutions with the programming required and lack of support to realize that solution either. Again, I am not proposing that OSS go away. Stop assuming that! The reality of most businesses (as it can clearly be seen by Windows' increasing market share and Linux's decreasing market share) require supportable, easily extensible solutions. Linux and OSS will always be there, but its own model is the most prohibitive factor. This post was edited by mram on Monday, August 09, 2004 at 12:29. |
| #16 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/9/2004 11:44:33 PM |
|
Halcyon, you're like all over the board with this. Noone wants to get rid of OSS. The best thing that Microsoft is doing in order to prevent market share loss, however, is to make corporations aware of the OSS problems; the model that legally and financially creates obstacles to innovation. Emulation is always available, but emulation is not cutting edge -- no business wants to be second rate to a innovative leader.
So what ever happened to "I believe I made all my points clear"? Noone wants to get rid of OSS, not even Microsoft. They just want people to be aware of the true cost of Linux, of Unix, of OSS, the TCO of the choice, the fundamental goals and the decisions people make to reach those goals. Microsoft is not just an OS, it is a solution provider, a technology company. This isn't as simple as OS platforms -- it is all about the economy of making money and owning product. For some, like you say, they will choose Linux/Unix/OSS. It is becoming more and more common that businesses will instead NOT choose that option because of the TCO involved. So quit making new points, unless you have something new to say, please. I don't think anyone here is trying to say OSS/Linux/Unix/GNU will go away. It's just obviously cost prohibitive to MOST of the market out there. My belief is that Microsoft's biggest scare is still in the home-user market, the desktop client. That's where a "free" client has the most benefit. But MS is focusing at the top of the food chain and working down -- for without enterprise buy-in, there is no corporate buy-in, and there is no remote-user buy-in, etc etc... the pyramid works down. |
| #17 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 2:44:44 AM |
|
Every company wants you to use their own software. I don't see why that makes Microsoft the bad guy. You said it yourself ... people will use what they use. Everyone downplays "the other guy". This isn't revolutionary. People did it hundreds of years ago.
What I don't get is that you keep reinforcing the viability of OSS (which I agree) but fail to agree on the practicality of that viability. lketchum comes up with a tangible solution with actual dollar figures, hard support contracts, and easy mgmt. To even consider an OSS alternative would easily lose features or cost more, despite the initial tangible outset of less costs for the backend product; the money would be lost on development derived from the OSS backend. I don't need TCO reports from Microsoft to know that that's true. I just know that it'd take years of programming from OSS equivalents to equal what is already developed in feature-rich closed source applications. Not to mention the interoperability, that's where it gets exponentially more difficult. What you're going to have to do to convince me or anyone else that OSS is viable (not good -- I know it's good, I know it'll be around, I know it'll always be here, etc etc etc) is that it has compelling features, supportability, reliability, security, accountability, and feature direction... not to mention interoperability, extensibility and manageability for the post development maintenance. I have yet to see a single OSS product out there that can compete with closed source. It is all innovative to Linux, but not innovative to the industry (drawing parallels, you could say that Microsoft does the same thing, but faster). |
| #18 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/10/2004 3:58:34 AM |
|
#48 Has it right from the perspective of the businesses we do work for. OSS is a lot more abstract than business people are prepared to deal with - simply, they are not willing to invest a lot of time in definition. Here's what we see/do - people are not interested in a menu, and a waitress. From what we see, they are interested in having a really good cook that is also a nutritionist.
They want a lot more than just software, and frankly and for a lot of good reasons, they do not trust software. Even small companies are concerned with business continuity - a much broader requirement than back up and business recovery strategies. Let me use another example, and with it, explain why we decided to particpate in this forum and not just observe it from the outside. Live examples, tied to business processes are important for all of us - they perhaps offer a means to share what we see, and hopefully raise the level of discourse not just above the flames, but to a new a place where we might see how technologies are used and enabled and share how and what that benefit is. While I am dead certain we are wrong about half the time, that just provides for opportunities to improve upon what we do "with" people and business. That said, and illustrating my point is this, small companies like mine may have something to offer, perhaps a great deal, but unless we are backed up by a consistent framework, companies are less likely to use us. OSS for the most part seems to fall into this category - smaller groups of providers. Now, by extension of the framework that is behind us, we can offer more consistency and comfort to our clients who are concerned not just about business recovery, but all aspects of business continuity - simply, "if" I and my entire crew were hit by the same bus, how easily could our clients transport what we have done to new providers - how quickly; how consistently and to what degree could such support immediate new work opposite emerging opportunities. We think a great deal on that, and developed "Plans Orange" - these are packages where all required components, documentation and procedures are prepared for clients. Becuase we use Microsoft software, tools and servers on x86 hardware and develop in .NET, we assess we are able to offer a more consistent business continuity offering and thus are able to secure more work. Cont below - This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 04:00. |
| #19 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/10/2004 3:59:19 AM |
|
Cont from above - Our clients, as I reason all, deserve that and not an unhealthy dependency upon less consistent models. Now not just tonight, but all the time, we are working proactively to move our clients forward. This is done with the knowledge that if they grow, we will grow, too. Tonight we have been putting some more into a registration engine that provides rewards to families of http://www.webeca.com "ECA Bucks" is a program designed to off-set the costs of frames and other opticals. ECA is a great client, which has grown very substantially - now imagine nearly 20 practices, two optical grinding labs and a lasiks center - all running different software on inconsistent clients. All needing one unifying space to coordinate the aggregate value and marketing needed to manage these practices. webeca is designed to do that. Its companion back-end, OcuSIS was developed to bridge these many systems and tie it to the company's patient base. It works - they grew like crazy and only MS and .NET enabled both development and the level of consistency these Doctors, Staff and Patients require. Now, OSS can do that, but not in the abstract. Companies, offering as much consistency, using OSS will have to be able to do for companies like mine what MS does. Novell/Suse - they come to mind and may be able to compete, but their offering will have to be as compelling, powerful and affordable and recognized as such, not by people like us, but the business decision makers at companies like ECA. Next, using the same stores we have built for others, and the Finance and Accounting Engine we built for yet another, we will add more value and grow with our growing clients - one or two objectives at a time and on top of a consistent transportable framework.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:49:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
