Open Symbiosis: Linux & Windows
This isn't a conflict...
I caught myself typing the title of this post as 'Linux vs. Microsoft' and I realized that "vs." is the real problem. Somewhere along the line somebody insisted that Linux and Microsoft were in competition. Now it is easy to understand how this might have come about. I have certainly contributed many glowing Linux endorsements and many vitriolic slams against Microsoft. From my rhetoric alone it would be easy to assume some gladiatorial Life-to-the-Victorious Death-to-the-Vanquished drama being played out in the coliseum of world PC computing.
After long reflection and introspection I have come to realize that the battle, the 'vs.' just isn't so. Oh, I will not dismiss certain interested parties and passionate extremists their claims. I will say that when I shed the purple rhetoric and reflect on the reality of my situation I can say that there is no battle. Alas, there are only casualties.
Allow me to lay out the terrain of this non-battle.
Through all of my experience in PC computing runs the thread of Microsoft. I was able to parlay an interest in PCs into a career and a profession as an Information Systems Manager. I have seen the business computing environment evolve from Win3.x and Novell to XP-Pro and Server2003. Windows is a business reality.
A little more than a decade ago I became interested in Linux, Slackware 4.1 to be exact. Alone in this mid-western wilderness I struggled. A user group, if there were any, was 1-3 hours away. So I was content to find my way through How-To's and man pages alone. As I progressed I came to realize a very important fact - in those early months and years of struggling with Linux I learned more about computers and computing than I had in the previous decade.
My point is that I wear two hats. My business hat is decidedly Microsoft. My PC hat is Slackware Linux. I am bi-lingual if you will. I am comfortable in each camp. I recognize the merit of each Operating System and computing environment. But it was not always so clearly delineated. As I have ashamedly acknowledge elsewhere I spent my first 18 months trying to bend Linux into some sort of Windows replacement (Ah, the heady days of new wine. - Sorry, geek joke.) It was then that I first realized the linguistic and almost Jungian collective-consciousness connection between PC computing and Microsoft Windows.
This morning I read a rather pointed criticism of Open Source Software (OSS). This particular article was speaking to the viability of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) and its dependence on OSS. The future of OLPC seems to be drawn into question because of the functionality of OSS. In short the article observes that OSS is not Windows and as such OLPC will either fail or have to adopt a Windows solution to survive.
Now we see that OLPC may switch to Windows XP, as Negroponte says that the open source Sugar GUI on the Linux-based OLPC is inferior in several ways, including being able to run the Flash files common to educational Web sites.
Negroponte is right to move away from the utopian vision that led OLPC to an all-open-source-based approach. Kudos for trying, but the OLPC experience shows that good intentions don't necessarily lead to good software.
Look how long the concept of desktop Linux has been around: a decade. Now look at how few desktop Linux PCs there are. Red Hat and Novell have pulled away from the consumer-oriented desktop Linux development, leaving Ubuntu to cheer on the cause to its small clique.
With all the antipathy toward Microsoft over the years, you'd think the open source community could have developed a credible desktop OS and related application stack during the past decade. But it has not.
InfoWorld: OLPC's open source qualms underscores a larger limit
Before going any further I feel it is imperative to acknowledge how emotionally charged the OLPC issue is separate from the Linux (OSS) & Windows issue. I don't believe that anyone is really against the OLPC initiative. That young people everywhere should have access to affordable computing infrastructure is laudable.
I believe the real issue is value.
Where is the value?
From a business view point, wearing my MIS hat, the value is with my customer's (user's) familiarity with a complex piece of business equipment. Being able to place a PC in front of a worker and have an almost instantaneous return is cost effective. Some will say that such familiarity is due to training and indoctrination by school systems that teach exclusively Microsoft systems. Systems that are significantly (economically) supported by Microsoft. I will counter by saying that for all the training that such education facilities offer the average user only comes away with a functional understand of the application stack, the business tools. From a business stand point that is all I really want - a familiarity with the tools that will promote my business-line objectives.
Another value criticism leveled is that "the Linux-based OLPC is inferior in several ways, including [not] being able to run the Flash files common to educational Web sites." (I added the "not" for syntactic clarity.) This is a classic example of a value issue. Flash technology is an Adobe product. Adobe, as a for-profit entity, is fully within their rights to expect to license and sell their product. The fact that it has become the de-facto standard for website animation does nothing to diminish their entitlement. The value of Flash is directly due to Adobe's willingness risk investing in an otherwise unknown technology.
The other side of this same value issue is the economic support for known technologies. It is widely understood that products need to be developed for known markets. That is why, for example, video subsystem manufacturers make such large investments in Microsoft drivers for their video cards. They know that if the do not invest in compatible drivers then their core product business will not flourish. While I sited video subsystems as my example this is true of every aspect of PC hardware. Aside from goodwill there is very little economic incentive for manufactures to develop software drivers that will not provide a clear return on their investment.
"With all the antipathy toward Microsoft . . ."
Linux and the OSS initiative evidently holds HUGE influence over an otherwise weak and trembling giant. Linux is reported as holding only 0.061% of the market share of Operating Systems. Yet the reporting of their efforts is couched in David [the Linux winner] verses Goliath [the Microsoft loser] prose. It is with this disparity of image verses reality in mind that the discussion should return to value. Linux for me both personally and professionally has been well worth the investment. Having taken the personal initiative to come to terms with it I can easily enumerate and quantify the value of Linux and the greater OSS community. I can also cite the expense incurred in having taken such an initiative.
TANSTAAFL Linux is not free.
Linux and OSS may be 'free-as-in-beer' (a distinction which is a confusing as it is clarifying) but the Total Cost of Owership (TCO) is much more expensive than desired. Free, in this case, is the value often used to describe the difference between the licensing costs of commercial products and the relative cost of OSS. Some of the more hidden cost centers that must be accounted for include user-ability, compatibility and interoperability. All these accounts must be paid before real price of Linux and OSS can be determined.
Regarding the difference between licensing costs of respective operating systems and software stacks
it is important to acknowledge that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to pay for commercial products. Theft by conversion, or "borrowing" commercial software is a crime in the same way as stealing it is a crime. By the way, stealing from a rich man is the same crime as stealing from a poor man.
The OSS community has sought to decriminalize the sharing/loaning/giving of software to others by instituting licensing agreements (which are no less binding than commercial licenses) that offer free access to and distribution of such software. Accordingly we can use the software with no obligation to pay for it.
This is where I take certain exception with the OSS community. I do not refute any part of the philosophy that is the foundation for OSS. Rather I believe that we as users have a moral and ethical responsibility to return value-for-value support of the OSS community. As such we, as individuals and business entities, should find ways to both socially and economically support OSS initatives.
The first and most important way that we can support the OSS community is to not engage in theft-by-conversion or the borrowing of illegal software. On the surface this might seem antithetical but lets examine the downstream effects.
- Either by paying full license costs or by accepting the OSS standard I am assuming a correct moral and ethical position. I am no longer a criminal or involved in criminal behavior.
- By choosing to value specific commercial software I endorse the legitimacy of the infrastructure necessary to support such software.
- By choosing to NOT value specific commercial software I am NOT endorsing the legitimacy of the infrastructure necessary to support such software.
- By choosing to not use commercial software I am bringing valid market pressure to bear on all OS and software developers.
Hidden Cost: User-ability
The average mainstream user makes little or no distinction between the PC and the OS and software stack. I have had a user go so far as to say, "I don't use spreadsheets I use Excel." It is unrealistic to assume that such a user or the majority of users will accept what appears to be large changes in their computing environment. Management, who are often as not average mainstream users, are prone to the same feelings. Unfortunately in this day and age of technological advances the users may well be the least sophisticated components of a computing environment.
Hidden Cost: Compatibility
With my business hat on I am quick to acknowledge issues of compatibility. File formats are of chief concern. This is true even between revisions of the same software application. With the complexity of evolving "Standards" some of which are proprietary and some are "open" the cost of compatibility rises quickly.
Hidden Cost: Interoperability
As any software developer or webmaster will tell you having to accommodate multiple computing platforms contributes to the complexity of a project by orders of magnitude. This complexity is raised to an almost insurmountable level with the introduction of proprietary "standards" or protocols.
In the face of all that where is the symbiosis?
Buried in the "This is the secret that makes the mighty Microsoft giant tremble." and "David [the Linux winner] verses Goliath [the Microsoft loser]" rhetoric lays the essential seed of this symbiotic relationship. Microsoft, for all its FUD and bluster, is a weak and trembling giant. From a business stand point if it doesn't evolve it will die. The driving force of that evolutionary process is the pending David [the Linux winner] threat.
Microsoft is under enormous pressure to simply stay alive. Businessweek reported that in 2005 Microsoft employed 60,000 people. Using that number and calculating an average of $52,000 per year per employee equals a payroll of $60,000,000 USD per week. ( $3,120,000,000 USD per year.) Then there are all the overhead costs of running the business. It is not surprising that Microsoft is concerned about mainstream average people looking seriously at Linux and the OSS community.
Another scenario that strikes fear into Microsoft's heart is the end of the XP cycle. Microsoft knows that if XP is discontinued before a viable alternative is brought to market then a significant percentage of the 91% of computer users will look seriously at an OS and application stack the will run on their older hardware.
The most ironic aspect of this entire situation is that Microsoft the giant is in a fight for its life while Linux and the OSS community are just enjoying the show. There is no contest. Linux and the OSS community have never been "beating" Microsoft. Everyone knows there is no point in beating a dying horse . . . even if it is before the cart.
[Addendum 4/25/8: In its fiscal third quarter earnings call Thursday, Microsoft met the Street's expectations but saw quarterly profit drop 11 percent from the year-ago quarter. - ChannelWeb ]
(Creds & Props: This post was composed in Firefox 3Beta5 running in a Slackware v12 custom compiled kernel running on an IBM R51 (duly licensed for XP-Pro according to the sticker on the bottom - XP dogs, Slackware Rocks!))
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete