Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 18, 2003 09:07 PM
Although I strongly agree with you in your views, and your worries, about Microsoft, I wanted to point out that, IMHO, Microsoft cannot succeed in decommoditizing internet protocols, and I'll shortly explain why.
The internet is Unix's realm, it was developed and still rests upon Unix's networking model. Microsoft has historically had little to do with it, and until Windoze 95, it barely had any support for the internet at all (and that was the reason some software houses, such as Netscape, made several products to fill in this gap). Later, Microsoft saw the importance and potential of the internet and made a heavy entrance in it.
Although Microsoft holds a near monopoly in the desktop arena, this is not true in the server business, where Microsoft holds a minority share, and most web servers are running Apache and its derivatives. Microsoft then holds the strings in one end, but the other side is, for them, uncharted territory.
The server side of the internet relies heavily upon open source solutions, be it the OS (Linux and BSD derivatives in the first place), or the application platform (Apache and its brethren).
Open Source solutions, by definition, do not implement any proprietary protocols, and therefore a "Microsoft-owned" internet scenario would imply that Microsoft would need to have a near monopoly also in the server side, which is highly improbable since the server solutions provided by Open Source software are very well known and regarded, and offer excellent solution to the tasks at hand. So, M$ cannot offer a better product, or a better price, or better functionality.
It is of concern, however, the fact that M$, as any other predator, when unable, or unwilling, to perform a frontal attack, would probably try to bit at the sides. That is, bundling its proprietary protocols toghether with the open ones, in the hopes that the protocols, once deployed and in use, would stick and gradually affirm themselves.
In such a scenario, the Open Source community's response should be that of defending the free solutions, developing alternatives for whatever added functionality those proprietary protocols could offer. It is probable that the server side, currently in the hands of Open Source, should keep its inertia and stick to the solutions it currently has, avoiding the costly change to M$ server platforms.
On the other hand, M$'s proprietary solutions have proved unreliable and unsecure, and it would be hard for M$ to sell their new fancy protocols to the server people, who should know better. The desktop side represents no problem for M$, they own the field and they can do its bidding. But when it comes to servers, M$ is one of the smaller players, and cannot do any of its monopolistic magic.
Also, some heavyweights are on the side of Open Source. The hardware makers, with IBM in the lead position, in the server side, are pushing Linux and supporting its solutions. No software manufacturer can pretend to impose itself over hardware manufacturers, when it comes to specialized equipment such as servers and business hardware, where the keyword is "reliable solutions", not "top-of-the-line" technology or "ease of use". Those are terms for desktop users.
I work at a very big bank in Europe, and at work we use Unix (not even Linux) everywhere. Microsoft is used in every user's box, but the servers are all Unix's territory, and it will keep that way, since the one that sold this solution (HP) is not only selling a box and a couple CDs of software, it is also bundling a lot of support and know-how with it.
Linux is a very friendly beast, when compared to HP-UX. CDE, the x-windows manager, is the ugliest thing you can put your eyes on. Nothing like KDE or Gnome's convenience and ease. Solutions are far from simple or evident, there are several "bizarre" ways of doing things, but this is of no concern to the bank. They want reliability and security, and they are ready to pay what it costs. People have little to do in this equation, since the bank can afford to retrain them or hire new talent.
Microsoft does not have the infrastructure nor the user-base to start competing in this kind of business, where IBM, HP and Sun are undisputed leaders. And it would only be very silly of Microsoft to put out a protocol which no server would implement, and this keeps the open alternative in the game.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Microsoft is Evil
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2003 09:07 PMThe internet is Unix's realm, it was developed and still rests upon Unix's networking model. Microsoft has historically had little to do with it, and until Windoze 95, it barely had any support for the internet at all (and that was the reason some software houses, such as Netscape, made several products to fill in this gap). Later, Microsoft saw the importance and potential of the internet and made a heavy entrance in it.
Although Microsoft holds a near monopoly in the desktop arena, this is not true in the server business, where Microsoft holds a minority share, and most web servers are running Apache and its derivatives. Microsoft then holds the strings in one end, but the other side is, for them, uncharted territory.
The server side of the internet relies heavily upon open source solutions, be it the OS (Linux and BSD derivatives in the first place), or the application platform (Apache and its brethren).
Open Source solutions, by definition, do not implement any proprietary protocols, and therefore a "Microsoft-owned" internet scenario would imply that Microsoft would need to have a near monopoly also in the server side, which is highly improbable since the server solutions provided by Open Source software are very well known and regarded, and offer excellent solution to the tasks at hand. So, M$ cannot offer a better product, or a better price, or better functionality.
It is of concern, however, the fact that M$, as any other predator, when unable, or unwilling, to perform a frontal attack, would probably try to bit at the sides. That is, bundling its proprietary protocols toghether with the open ones, in the hopes that the protocols, once deployed and in use, would stick and gradually affirm themselves.
In such a scenario, the Open Source community's response should be that of defending the free solutions, developing alternatives for whatever added functionality those proprietary protocols could offer. It is probable that the server side, currently in the hands of Open Source, should keep its inertia and stick to the solutions it currently has, avoiding the costly change to M$ server platforms.
On the other hand, M$'s proprietary solutions have proved unreliable and unsecure, and it would be hard for M$ to sell their new fancy protocols to the server people, who should know better. The desktop side represents no problem for M$, they own the field and they can do its bidding. But when it comes to servers, M$ is one of the smaller players, and cannot do any of its monopolistic magic.
Also, some heavyweights are on the side of Open Source. The hardware makers, with IBM in the lead position, in the server side, are pushing Linux and supporting its solutions. No software manufacturer can pretend to impose itself over hardware manufacturers, when it comes to specialized equipment such as servers and business hardware, where the keyword is "reliable solutions", not "top-of-the-line" technology or "ease of use". Those are terms for desktop users.
I work at a very big bank in Europe, and at work we use Unix (not even Linux) everywhere. Microsoft is used in every user's box, but the servers are all Unix's territory, and it will keep that way, since the one that sold this solution (HP) is not only selling a box and a couple CDs of software, it is also bundling a lot of support and know-how with it.
Linux is a very friendly beast, when compared to HP-UX. CDE, the x-windows manager, is the ugliest thing you can put your eyes on. Nothing like KDE or Gnome's convenience and ease. Solutions are far from simple or evident, there are several "bizarre" ways of doing things, but this is of no concern to the bank. They want reliability and security, and they are ready to pay what it costs. People have little to do in this equation, since the bank can afford to retrain them or hire new talent.
Microsoft does not have the infrastructure nor the user-base to start competing in this kind of business, where IBM, HP and Sun are undisputed leaders. And it would only be very silly of Microsoft to put out a protocol which no server would implement, and this keeps the open alternative in the game.
#