> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21511.html
> REPORT: MORE SEEK MICROSOFT ALTERNATIVES
> Keith Regan -- May 14, 2003
> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> security arena.
> ---
> Microsoft faces a backlash even at home,, where the company's runaway
> success has created pockets of resentment among hardware makers and
> software firms that find themselves forced to make Windows- compatible
> products, according to Gartner analyst Robin Simpson.
> ---
> Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.
> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> security arena.
> ---
<b>
From the same article:
Love-Hate Relationship
Forrester analyst Rob Enderle told the E-Commerce Times that
there have always been enterprises that have sought to
resist Microsoft, but most find few alternatives that are as
well developed as the software giant's products.
"The reason they got to be the biggest in the first place
was they made better products," Enderle said. "They've tried
to stay committed to development so that people won't stray
or those who do will come back over time."
</b>
In reality this is completely false. Microsoft's products
have been inferior to competitor products for years. When
MS-DOS was still trying to figure out TSRs (remember
those?), CP/M 86 had preemptive multitasking. When
Microsoft was still trying to figure out overlapping
windows, UNIX was offering X11. When Microsoft was still
trying to get Windows to run for more than 3 hours between
crashing,
The reason they got to be big was a strategy they adopted
after their first year with MITS. Rather than leave the OEM
with the disgression of selling optional licenses. They
made sure that every OEM included their software with every
machine the OEM produced. When the FTC threatened to
prosecute, they settled, and got around the settlement terms
by using cliff-tiered pricing to force the OEMs to purchase
MORE licenses than they needed. Later, they tried to force
the OEMs to include their application software (Office), and
again got around the FTC/DOJ bundling settlement by putting
all of the Libraries for Office into Windows, then went to
corporate customers and forced them to include office on
every machine sold - in exchange for "support" (which turned
out to be much less than expected). When Linux distributors
tried to offer Linux to the OEMs, Microsoft altered the OEM
licenses to prevent them from altering the boot sequence,
preventing the installation of a boot manager to permit
dual-boot operation.
Even today, with a court ruling against it, and a settlement
which was intended to prevent Microsoft from preventing OEMs
from installing Linux, Microsoft used a clause permitting
them to compensate OEMs for development to effectively get
around the intent of the settlement by paying the OEMs
"bonuses" for "Microsoft Only" (no Linux drivers available
when the hardware is released) hardware and drivers. As a
result, the OEMs couldn't install Linux, but Microsoft
rewared them by knocking the equivalent of 20-30% off the
license price.
Microsoft also leveraged a $4 billion/year advertizing
budget by controlling ad placement, giving them effective
control of over nearly $40 billion/year. Microsoft used
this leverage to pressure the media industry into writing
favorable articles singing the praises of Vaporware that
didn't exist, and to discourage favorable coverage of Mac,
and UNIX, including Solaris, Interactive Unix, UnixWare, and
Linux. When articles were written, writers were very
careful to throw in some left-handed compliments, and then
"balance" their article by pointing out minor faults as
major issues, while ignoring the advantages.
It wasn't until Red Hat Linux 4.0 won "Product of the Year"
in a dead heat tie with Windows NT 4.0 that Linux really got
any official recognition. By Red Hat 4.2, Linux was
winning awards from many publications, and Microsoft was
scrambling to catch up. Red Hat tried to crack the OEM
market, offering quantity prices as low as $2/copy, but the
OEMs were blocked by Microsoft's license terms, especially
with the release of Windows 98.
Red Hat focused on the server market, and very quickly Linux
machines began covertly popping into data centers all over
the world. Eventually, when IDC began asking CIOs if they
used Linux, they investigated, and 17% found that they were
using Linux. Many web sites were using Linux and many
hosting companies were using thousands of Linux servers.
Each area where Linux was used, it quickly established
itself as a leader in the field, outperforming even the best
competitors within the size and class being used.
Microsoft is still trying to find legal, or even illegal,
ways to keep Microsoft out of it's critical desktop market.
They have already seen the damage Linux can due based on
their experience in the server market. Last year, Linux and
Microsoft were running neck and neck in the server market in
terms of units deployed, and there are a few indications
that Linux is now leading the market.
Microsoft still controls the OEM distribution channel, and
allows no competitors. When Sun tried to offer Java 2 to
the OEMS, or to encourage them to install their own
compatible Java 2 implementations, Microsoft had prevented
the OEMs from doing so.
To claim that Microsoft products were far superior to their
competitors is, at best, a subjective statement. For most
of the last 10 years, there hasn't been much opportunity to
make comparisons. To claim that this was the primary reason
for Microsoft's success, is just plain ignorance.
Microsoft was able to prevent IBM from shipping Warp 4 on
their own PCs, an operating system for which IBM had paid
Microsoft over $1 billion and had invested another $2
billion on their own R&D.
--
Rex Ballard
Leading Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.org/bio
by