[AccessD] OT: open source

Warning!!! I got very, very verbose.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that MS has to worry a lot
about open source on the desktop for quite a few more years. Once some
of the desktop apps start to mature a bit more, I think MS will start
being given a run for their money. Things like OpenOffice (office
suite), Firefox (web browser), ThunderBird(e-mail client). Once they
start to take a hold, then MS will definitely need to watch what they
do. Actually they are probably watching now and don't like what they
see. The open source apps are *almost* there, but they have their
quirks, that either need to get fixed, or users will get used to them.
Just like they did, and do, with MS products.

As for the actual Desktop operating system, that is further out. 5-7
years would be my guess. Linux needs a few things to become more
competitive with Windows. It *needs* to become less "geek-friendly" and
more "user friendly". It also *NEEDS* to have a "standard" GUI, or at
least a standard layout. That way the end user can find what they are
looking for with minimal effort. Fragmentation, between KDE and Gnome
and all the lesser known desktops, is really hurting Linux's acceptance
on the desktop. Home and corporate. The choice to use your preferred
desktop needs to exist, but it's got to start out looking and feeling
the same as the next one. That way a user can go from this PC to that PC
to the other and have the "same experience" Much the same way Windows
users have it right now. yes I know there are differences between 9x,
NT4, 2K and XP (both the classic UI and the "Fisher Price" one{that I
happen to like :) } ). they are slightly different, but close enough for
most people to stumble their way around. Unfortunately the Linux
X-Widows desktops don't have that "portability" right now. The choice to
use which ever one you want needs to remain, for the hard core Linux
users, but for the average user, they don't care. Just let them set
their wallpaper to their dog or cat or kids and make sure they can use
the tools they need to do their job and they are happy. Yep, I know that
is a bit condescending to the users, but I don't think its' that far
from the truth

Now, in the server room, I think that MS has got more to worry about.
Just like the switch from Novell to MS happened (although I disagree
that Novell networks are dead), I really think that the switch to Linux
there is already  happening.

As more and more SysAdmins set up "test" boxes to "play" with Linux and
end up part of the network infrastructure, Linux will become more and
more the choice for new servers. With all the excellent and mature
server software for Linux, that is out there, MS better watch themselves
otherwise they will lose the server room. Is Linux better than Win
Servers? Are either better than Novell? Is Novell better that either
one? No to all the questions. They all fill different needs. 

If I am Novell certified, then of course I'm going to lean towards
Novell servers and be able to "make it work". If I am MS certified, then
that is where my loyalties will be. If I'm comfortable with Unix or
Linux, then Linux will be the server of choice for me. All 3 would work
equally well. 

I'd almost be willing to bet that if I had 3 equally competent
SysAdmins, one for each Linux, MS and Novell, the TCO would be similar
enough to not be a deciding factor. As more and more SysAdmins become
more and more comfortable with Linux you'll see they start taking market
share away from MS, and not just the Unix vendors like they are now.

As MS makes the hardware specs higher and higher for their servers,
increases the license costs and p*sses more and more people with the
changes in the license agreements, then Linux servers will replace MS
servers one by one. I don't think you will see a lot of people saying
"Rip out all the MS servers and replace them with Linux servers", what
you will see is people saying "We need another server, so let's use
Linux, since it can integrate with our network as it is"

Now, I know that isn't really answering your question Susan, but I'm
getting to that. :)

MS needs to take the Open Source community seriously. Its making
inroads into a lot of places that I never thought it would. My house for
one. I have long been a strong MS proponent. Well actually, since about
92 or 93, when I first started using Windows. But as Open Source is
maturing, it is looking like a better alternative to me. I am using a
whole host of Open Source apps in my day to day life. They are
comparable to commercial apps. Things like Filezilla (FTP client, but I
know you know that already Susan :)and Firefox (web browser). Why should
I fork $40 or $50 or $100 for an app that I can get for free? Yes, I
know that with the paid apps, I get tech support, but these days tech
support for software is crap. The last time I *NEEDED* software support,
was about 4 or 5 years ago when I got bad discs. I took it back to the
store where I bought it until I had gone through EVERY SINGLE
SHRINK-WRAPPED PACKAGE they had. I finally contacted the vendor and got
the run around trying to get these defective discs replaced. It took me
about 3 months to get it sorted out. For $100 I should get better
service than that. I'd much sooner deal with an online community, such
as DBA, for the software support than the vendor. I get better and more
accurate responses.

Will MS need to make their stuff Open Source to survive? I don't think
so. 
Will MS Open Source their software anyway? I really doubt it. Maybe
bits and pieces, but the whole thing, No way.
Will MS incorporate Open Source into their software? As far as I
understand, they already have with the TCP/IP stack. Its based on the
BSD stack, IIRC. 

Keep in mind that there are several different Open Source licenses.
There are 2 that I am most familiar with.

1) There is the Gnu Public Licence(GPL) which in a nutshell says that
the software, and any software derived for it MUST make available the
source code to those that ask. You can charge for the software if you
want, but the source code must be given upon request. This is what the
Linux Kernel is distributed under.

2) BSD style license. Basically this says that you can do what you wan
t with the source code. You can leave it open, you can build a derived
work and keep it open. You can create a derivative and close it. You can
do what ever you want, except claim you wrote the original. Mac OS X is
built on one of the BSD operating systems. It is a closed derivative of
BSD. If you want to see a BSD style license look at the license
agreement that we (Andy, Lembit, Reuben and I) used for the BEU.

So they are allowed to use BSD style open source material in their
applications. So, I suspect that they will continue to use it. However,
there is the expectation that if you improve open source code, you
return the improved code to the community. I can't see MS doing this
freely, or at least "in the open". It will hurt their "public image"

To sum up, in 10,000 words or less :) 

MS needs to watch the open source community. It will hurt them if they
are not careful. It won't be a quick kill, but slow and gradual.
Actually it will probably hurt them even if they are careful. MS
probably won't open source their code, but will use what they can from
the community and get away with.

Is open source a panacea? No way. But then again, neither is MS. It's a
choice that is becoming more and more viable especially as the software
becomes more mature. Will it hurt MS? In the long run, more likely than
not, but MS will survive. They may be different, but they will still be
there.

How's that for $0.02 worth of opinion.

Bryan Carbonnell
bryan_carbonnell at cbc.ca


>>> ssharkins at bellsouth.net 04/06/04 10:58AM >>>
Someone has asked me "What's in the future for Microsoft and the Open
Source
movement? "
 
It's such a huge topic I couldn't really answer -- it's going to take
me a
few days to formulate a response. It is a tad off topic for a strictly
Access list -- and I don't want any MS bashing, just because that would
be
even more off topic -- but anyone want to make a comment on the
subject? I'd
love to hear them -- my initial response to the guy was "Resistance is
futile" but that's only really funny if you're saying it from the MS
perspective. ;)