Jul 30, 1999, 01:32 (57 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Paul Ferris)
Desktop-as-a-Service Designed for Any Cloud ? Nutanix Frame
[ The opinions expressed by authors on Linux Today are their
own. They speak only for themselves and not for Linux Today.
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
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
This is to further clarify that position, and to realign it for
some people who think that maybe we should just "all get
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
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
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
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
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 manner.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Clearly I'm not in the grandstands here, I'm in the thick of the
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."
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, if it involves Microsoft.