Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 2007: a world without Microsoft?
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The disappearance of Microsoft and Windows would leave a massive
> | vacuum in the computing industry - who would be able to take
> | advantage and slip into the gap? Who would benefit the most?
This is a very legitimate question, and one Linux advocates should be
asking themselves and each other. Looking at that, and working
backward to the current situation gives the roadmap to the scenario.
It's often called the "Merlin Excercise". One creates a future goal,
and then remembers how to get there from furthest point in time, to
current time.
Let's imagine the world without Microsoft (in the PC industry). We
will assume that Microsoft fights Linux to the point of destroying
itself completely and diversifies it's revenue to other sources - such
as game machines and game software.
If Microsoft is gone, we would need a replacement for Microsoft Office
- something like Open Office, or an equivalent.
But to win against Microsoft, we need multiple competitors. No one
competitor can beat Microsoft. Therefore, all competitors need to be
able to rally around a common set of standards which allows them to win
costumer base, taking it away from Microsoft, without locking the
customer into another monopoly. Open Document Format is such a
standard.
We would also need an alternative to Windows. Again, the customer must
feel that he isn't trading one monopoly for another. A single
competitor solution such as Mac OS/X would simply replace one monopoly
with another. Linux on the other hand, is supported by a number of
vendors. The combination of OS/X and Linux increases the field of
competitors, giving the OEMs the sense of safety. Vendors might even
opt to support multiple vendors from the very beginning.
Of course, to keep the multiple vendors cooperating, including Mac
OS/X, it's very important for them to adopt a common set of standards.
A standards body with integrity is required, preferably a non-profit
organization where corporate sponsors have no "voting control" - such
as OSDL or FSF. They would need to adopt a common framework, like
LSB-3
But before Linux could displace Windows, it would be necessary to have
portable applications that can run on either platform. Writing
applications in Java, or using Cygwin libraries, or using Python, Perl,
or Ruby would make it possible to create applications that could be run
easily on both Windows and Linux.
But before the vendors started writing in these portable languages,
you'd need to demonstrate that a multiplatform application could
penetrate the market. Vendors would need to know that there are enough
end-users willing to use multiplatform applications instead of "Windows
Only" applications. This is why it was so important to see 200 million
downloads of Firefox, and 200 million downloads of Open Office. It
shows companies that products like Quicken, Tax Cut, Adobe Acrobat,
Flash, and other best of breed applications can maintain a strong
market position in both Windows and Linux by using the miltiplatform
technologies.
But before corporations will trust OSS applications on the desktop,
they need to see it elsewhere in the IT environment, somewhere where
Windows and Linux can be compared in "real world" environments. The
server market is a good example. IT managers need to see that Linux,
Apache, MySQL, Perl, and Java, in conjunction with commercial databases
on UNIX servers can function as well as Windows, IIS, VBScript, SQL
Server and Visual Basic in conjunction with commercial databases on
UNIX servers. Of course, Linux has been competing toe to toe in such
environments since about 1998, and has continued to gain popularity
since. Many Linux customers have reported savings as high as 90%
compared to Windows, especially when looking at long term outlooks of
2-5 years.
Of course, before you can get IT departments to try Linux in the
mission critical applications, they need to try something "low risk".
Simple internel web servers, file servers, or mail servers would be a
good place to start. It makes it much easier to get that first trial
if you don't need too many layers of management approval. If you can
use a free version of Linux, on a machine that has been replaced by a
newer Windows server, there are no approvals required at all.
But if we go back to that Merlin excercize we even have to stipulate
further.
For IT departments to replace Windows with Linux, Linux would have to
do MORE than Windows did, and better.
What if Linux made it possible for people from multiple businesses, in
multiple offices, and even in multiple countries, to collaborate so
efficiently it is almost like they were working in the same building?
But such capabilities require a really good pilot project. How about
Linux itself? What if the Linux operating system, libraries,
supporting applications, and support organizations were all created by
a huge global organization - that used Linux?
So of course the pilot development system and environment, including
all of the collaboration tools were all written for Linux, in Linux,
using Linux. And these collaboration tools were refined along with the
project itself. Now, this isn't as much fun as really fancy live 3D
animation graphics for video games, but it's exactly what multinational
corporations, and the businesses who support them are looking for.
> | [...]
> | Linux is already offering alternatives to Microsoft, and would
> | easily rush into the gap.
Linux is to Operating systems what the Internet was to networking.
More appropriately
Linux is to Windows, what the Internet was to Netware.
However, it's a covert movement. Microsoft has a huge monopoly, many
billions to spend attempting to crush would-be rivals. If a company is
willing to spend nearly $ 4 billion/year to pay for advertizing to
advertize an operating system which is sold through OEMs and corporate
IT directors (giving very little choice to end-users), then spending
1/4 million to crush some upstart developer or IT manager who is
threatening to bring Linux onto desktops at a major corporation.
For this reason, most of the process of getting Linux into businesses
has been very covert.
Now that i'ts pretty clear that the courts won't be worth squat to
help, the Linux community is getting bolder and bolder. But that
doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't push. But it's getting to be more
like "bop the beaver". Linux is popping up in all sorts of places,
with public announcements from lots of different organizations,
businesses, and companies. Microsoft even flys Steve Ballmer to these
places and has him "have a little talk" with these people.
Microsoft knows that it has a little problem with Linux and OSS.
> http://apcmag.com/4891/a_world_without_microsoft
> No zombies. No SPAM. Overnight, a dream becomes a reality.
|
|
