COMMENT
The struggle between Windows and the open source movement calls for epic metaphors, says Simon Moores, but the battle will be fought in the middle ground and can we really expect Linux to defeat the Empire there?
Some time has passed since I last revisited the titanic struggle between the "Open Force" (or is that open source) and the Empire, loosely known as Microsoft.
Since then we've had a new Star Wars movie and a total cost of ownership argument from Gartner has proved compelling enough for Lord Vader to decide that when it comes to provisioning something as large as a Death Star, Windows offers a pretty decisive advantage.
In fact, the Star Wars saga offers a better metaphor for the struggle between Windows and the open source - principally Linux - movement than you might think, as this is a story which pits two conflicting ideologies against each other and which looks set to run for multiple episodes and see victories for both sides, for many years to come.
"Microsoft," reports Gartner, "will remain the dominant server operating-system provider for midsize businesses through 2010. For midsize businesses Linux presents many challenges, including not fully understanding the OS' benefits, resource constraints and the perceived high switching costs to move from Windows."
In principle at least, neither side looks set to lose in the arms race between the two camps. Microsoft's grip on the server market remains too powerful to lead to anything more than guerrilla victories for Linux. But Linux will in turn offer a growing number of advantages, making such wins larger, more significant and more frequent as time passes.
Strategically, Microsoft, after years of attempting to ignore the threat from the open source community, is now looking for the arguments that reinforce both its own paradigm model and customer loyalties that exist in the enterprise market. While, from time to time, it conveniently shoots itself in both feet with its aggressive software licensing policies.
This strikes me as bizarre because, given its market share advantage, Microsoft has some control, through its pricing, of Linux market-share growth going forward.
After all, in a rabidly costs-conscious enterprise IT environment, a clear cost of ownership advantage one way or the other is compelling - which is why Microsoft is finding it hard to stack the argument against Linux, particularly at the mid-level enterprise level, where it feels it is at its most vulnerable to penguin creep.
Security remains an inflection point in the struggle between open source and Windows. Looking back at columns I've written on the subject, one can see that Microsoft has managed to turn what was a shambles into relatively solid argument in favour of using Windows over Linux.
While at this point, I can almost hear my inbox filling with outraged emails from the open source community, I think we need to accept, that while Windows is subject to a constant catalogue of exploits, Microsoft's method of delivering security updates, does, in my experience, inspire a level of confidence among businesses that has yet to exist in the open source world.
I'm not saying that the Windows platform itself is more intrinsically secure but that in a world increasingly swamped by cyber crime, business and consumers are possibly more confident in a single source of leadership than an open one.
It's important to note that since I first started writing about the growth of open source in around 1999, both Linux and Windows have both been growing at the expense of Novell, Sun Solaris and Unix but from now on, as Gartner warns, Microsoft, is facing a highly flexible and mature operating system, which "Through 2010, [is] likely to become increasingly prominent among large enterprises".
As this occurs, Gartner adds, the Linux-focused market and after-market skills base will increase in support of large enterprises, feeding the skills and technology pool to the benefit of midsize businesses as well. As this "mature ecosystem increases", it concludes, "the risk of market share loss for Microsoft increases" and "businesses will have a more substantial alternative to Windows than they have had".
I have to agree with Gartner, it's the middle ground where Microsoft looks set to be most vulnerable over the next five years because it's here that Linux offers the kind of evolutionary flexibility which doesn't quite exist in larger enterprises, wrapped in a tight knot of compliance, security and TCO issues.
In a stark warning to the software giant, Gartner writes: "It is Microsoft's business to lose, and it must execute diligently against its midsize-business strategy to secure its position," which rather reminds me of the problem faced by another global superpower today: that of winning mindshare and a series of small wars than the much larger battles it's more suited for.
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. Carlton Lee
Microsoft hasn't begun to deal with the biggest issues:
1. Why pay premium prices for a product that is essentially 30 year old and was initially created by companies other that Microsoft. Patents have run out. Proprietary formats break ability to share files and create problems for long term storage. What do users/companies do for files that need to be stored and accessible for 20 or 100 years. It worked in Word 2 but not Word 2040.
2. Total cost of ownership should be going down for Microsoft solutions but they Microsoft keeps increasing costs for their products and never men TCO costs for Virus protection and repair.
Who pay for the virus problems in Microsoft - WE ALL DO and these costs should be explained and detailed in their GET THE FACTS RIGHT studies. Take a look you don't find these costs detailed.
3. As Open Source moves into the Hardware arena costs for purchase and support of hardware products should go down, at least for Open Source solutions. Another Microsoft hidden cost that is not detailed in their GET THE FACTS RIGHT propaganda. 1. When a closed source hardware company goes out of business often the hardware becomes useless, especially if the end users needs to then upgrade to the latest version of Microsoft X. The solution is broken and they will not be able to obtain driver for their hardware. Hidden cost: (many closed source drivers are built using Microsoft tools and software. Not fixable. additional extra Microsoft cost. 2. Open source drivers for hardware would allow upgrading drivers as and when needed. For example: moving hardware around, changing operating systems, solving the problem of maintaining systems for long periods of time. (You know that document that they need to open up thats 40 years old and on a 40 year old server.) 3. One side benefit is that this older hardware could then be sent to a developing country and used by people that need computer equipment, just any equipment. With the Microsoft solution you might as well through it away. (Eventually I believe that hardware manufactures will be required by law to maintain drivers for hardware for a minimum period of time. Or to simply open source them.)
4. As I told my then employers in 1996. Linux is going to clean Microsofts clock. Unless they diversify.
The Xbox is where Microsoft is going. Just a question, if Microsoft really thought they would win the server and desktop thing against Linux don't you think they would drop the Xbox and concentrate on solving security and virus issues. It seems sort of funny. People lose millions of dollars because of security problems, virus's and technical issues and Microsoft is playing with games.
Go figure!
2. joe ferrare
I think it would have been interesting if you had used the superpower metaphor for the whole article. Afterall, the MS vs Linux war is a lot like the USSR vs the USA -- philosophies fighting for mind share, proxy wars, partners/client states, etc. Except that, contrary to the whole "open source is communism" school of thought, MS is a much better fit for representing the USSR: one approved solution, one set of approved possibilities on every ballot (to say nothing of questionable aesthetic taste and and an arrogant attitude). Linux better represents the chaotic feel of democracy. And, as in real political life, people who are insecure are much more tolerant of authoritarianism. So you have to wonder what will happen to Microsoft once computing (or maybe just the OS end of it) becomes so non-threatening people are no longer willing to trade freedom and cash for hand-holding.
3. Scott Ruecker
If you actually knew what you weretalking about, you would not sound so stupid. How does putting out updates once a month, if they feel like it that month, instill confidence in you? Your a shill.
4. anonymous
Given the number of relative security exploits and the times it takes an enterprise, like a major bank or government agency to a implement patch, would pushing out patches, ad hoc offer a better solution I wonder?
I would suggest though that resorting to personal abuse does rather limit your ability to explore the argument objectively.
5. Rob Lewis
"in a world increasingly swamped by cyber crime, business and consumers are possibly more confident in a single source of leadership than an open one", but what leadership is that? One could paraphrase a famous duo and say "this is a fine mess you have gotten us into". So much for MS leadership so far.