Microsoft Switches Strategy on Linux

Zardon · Dec 26, 2002, 04:42 PM

SEATTLE -- Microsoft Corp. executives have called the open-source software Linux a cancer. They've even described the increasingly popular operating system -- an alternative to Microsoft's proprietary Windows -- as un-American.

But now they're hoping to attach a different word: costly.

As businesses increasingly adopt Linux to run their computer servers, Microsoft is shifting the battleground from schoolyard insults or techie-speak to corporate notions of "business value."

"There has been a lot of debate in the Linux space that has been focused on the emotion and focused on the technology," said Peter Houston, senior director of server strategy for Microsoft.

Microsoft, he said, is trying to show customers that it's the best choice "when you make a buying decision based on the business value."

It's the latest turn in a battle that has the world's largest software company squaring off against a technology that is, for now, more political statement than commercial competitor.

While Microsoft is a single corporation that zealously guards the code underlying its Windows operating system, Linux is more difficult to pin down and has no single owner. The Linux community makes the underlying source code openly available for improvements by any programmer. Users can download the software for free.

The Linux hydra is growing a commercial head too. Companies including Sun Microsystems Inc. and IBM Corp. are rolling out products and creating business models based on Linux.

And Microsoft has seized on that development -- and points out the technological expertise and labor needed to tailor Linux to companies' needs -- in arguing that free isn't really free.

Linux can require costly technical staff, said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group.

"You lose the ability to buy something and plug it in," he said. "It takes you more time to do it. If the [Linux expert] leaves, you could be left with something that's unsupportable."

Still, customizability is part of Linux's appeal, Enderle said.

Houston said Microsoft is marketing its out-of-the-box ease, along with the fact that technical staffers already are familiar with Microsoft software, as reasons companies should choose Microsoft server products.

The company even commissioned a study, by International Data Corp., concluding that in network infrastructure, file serving, print serving and security workloads, Linux-based servers cost more to run than Microsoft Windows 2000 server software over a five-year period. The report cites the staffing costs as the biggest reason.

Still, Microsoft has reason to worry. Linux has been gaining ground in the market for software on new computer servers, so much so that one analyst firm, Meta Group in Stamford, Conn., predicted that Microsoft will start offering limited products tailored for the Linux platform by the end of 2004.

Meta Group projects that Linux will grow from today's roughly 15% to as much as 45% of the market for new servers by 2006 or 2007. Meta says business-savvy Microsoft won't be able to resist the potential profit.

Houston denied that. "We made this bet on Windows," he said. "It's paying off for customers and we're going to stick with that course."

Microsoft also questions whether Linux will capture such a big share of the market.

Several analysts say that Linux's growth comes from Unix-based servers offered by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and others. In a few years, after most companies abandon Unix, Linux's biggest opportunity for growth will be by cutting into Microsoft's share.

Linux may get a boost because of residual anger from companies and government agencies over Microsoft's new licensing program. That program, instituted this year, requires those who buy software in bulk to sign up for multiyear subscriptions for upgrades or potentially pay far more later on.

Although some customers said they signed up this time, they might not renew if they have a viable alternative.

Microsoft can tout potential savings and commission studies, but those efforts won't be any more effective in securing customers than its past tactics, Enderle said.

"To make that argument, it really needs to be made by practitioners, not by the vendor itself," the analyst said. "To make it stick you really need company [information technology] managers to stand up." LA times

karlotta · Dec 26, 2002, 05:51 PM

RedHat 8 is giving them a scare!

ivan300 · Dec 26, 2002, 07:59 PM

M$ is going down !!!

EcPercy · Dec 26, 2002, 10:01 PM

while i love windows 2000 i do not believe that it costs more to run a linux server than a windows box. i read a story awhile back on how this company was switching from windows to linux and it was projecting a 5 year savings of over 90,000...?? That seems to me to be a significant amount of $ saved. plus linux is free while a copy of windows 2000 pro costs $199.99 and a copy of server with 5 licenses costs $697-$931: Windows 2000 Server with 150 Licenses
$10,764.00

if you were to buy say redhat pro you would pay $119-$143
and redhat advanced server costs $799

if you know what you are doing then you should be able to fugure out how to make linux work...

i love windows mainly because of its "out of the box" compatiblilty, but i do not agree with product activation of M$ new TCA Palladium crap and i will not let them control me or MY pc... if palladium becomes mainstream then i will burn my computers and only use ones at work rathern then to give M$ access to my machine anytime they want to look and see what software i havent renewed...if you pay $300 for the OS it should be yours NO MATTER WHAT... and if you pay $600 to get office you should be able to use it NO MATTER WHAT... but that is an entirely different discussion!

ToshiroOC · Dec 27, 2002, 01:21 AM

In other unrelated news, Microsoft troops occupied the Torvalds home in an attempt to help the US economy. More news at 11.

nForcer · Dec 27, 2002, 03:56 AM

If I had a machine I didn't care much about, I'd throw linux on it. Nuff said

JLP · Dec 27, 2002, 11:10 AM

It's crazy how much Microsoft lies. Linux more expensive to use then Windows and other needed software. Please give me a break. What do they think? That we are so stupid to believe them? In my fathers company they did a little math and figured out that they can save lots and lots of money by switching to Linux and OpenOffice.org. So the company is now taking steps to start moving to Linux. The sooner Microsoft dies the better.

Dec 26, 2002, 04:42 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Microsoft Switches Strategy on Linux SEATTLE -- Microsoft Corp. executives have called the open-source software Linux a cancer. They've even described the increasingly popular operating system -- an alternative to Microsoft's proprietary Windows -- as un-American. But now they're hoping to attach a different word: costly. As businesses increasingly adopt Linux to run their computer servers, Microsoft is shifting the battleground from schoolyard insults or techie-speak to corporate notions of "business value." "There has been a lot of debate in the Linux space that has been focused on the emotion and focused on the technology," said Peter Houston, senior director of server strategy for Microsoft. Microsoft, he said, is trying to show customers that it's the best choice "when you make a buying decision based on the business value." It's the latest turn in a battle that has the world's largest software company squaring off against a technology that is, for now, more political statement than commercial competitor. While Microsoft is a single corporation that zealously guards the code underlying its Windows operating system, Linux is more difficult to pin down and has no single owner. The Linux community makes the underlying source code openly available for improvements by any programmer. Users can download the software for free. The Linux hydra is growing a commercial head too. Companies including Sun Microsystems Inc. and IBM Corp. are rolling out products and creating business models based on Linux. And Microsoft has seized on that development -- and points out the technological expertise and labor needed to tailor Linux to companies' needs -- in arguing that free isn't really free. Linux can require costly technical staff, said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group. "You lose the ability to buy something and plug it in," he said. "It takes you more time to do it. If the [Linux expert] leaves, you could be left with something that's unsupportable." Still, customizability is part of Linux's appeal, Enderle said. Houston said Microsoft is marketing its out-of-the-box ease, along with the fact that technical staffers already are familiar with Microsoft software, as reasons companies should choose Microsoft server products. The company even commissioned a study, by International Data Corp., concluding that in network infrastructure, file serving, print serving and security workloads, Linux-based servers cost more to run than Microsoft Windows 2000 server software over a five-year period. The report cites the staffing costs as the biggest reason. Still, Microsoft has reason to worry. Linux has been gaining ground in the market for software on new computer servers, so much so that one analyst firm, Meta Group in Stamford, Conn., predicted that Microsoft will start offering limited products tailored for the Linux platform by the end of 2004. Meta Group projects that Linux will grow from today's roughly 15% to as much as 45% of the market for new servers by 2006 or 2007. Meta says business-savvy Microsoft won't be able to resist the potential profit. Houston denied that. "We made this bet on Windows," he said. "It's paying off for customers and we're going to stick with that course." Microsoft also questions whether Linux will capture such a big share of the market. Several analysts say that Linux's growth comes from Unix-based servers offered by Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and others. In a few years, after most companies abandon Unix, Linux's biggest opportunity for growth will be by cutting into Microsoft's share. Linux may get a boost because of residual anger from companies and government agencies over Microsoft's new licensing program. That program, instituted this year, requires those who buy software in bulk to sign up for multiyear subscriptions for upgrades or potentially pay far more later on. Although some customers said they signed up this time, they might not renew if they have a viable alternative. Microsoft can tout potential savings and commission studies, but those efforts won't be any more effective in securing customers than its past tactics, Enderle said. "To make that argument, it really needs to be made by practitioners, not by the vendor itself," the analyst said. "To make it stick you really need company [information technology] managers to stand up." LA times

Dec 26, 2002, 10:01 PM	#4
EcPercy HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Iraq Posts: 1,535 Rep Power: 0	while i love windows 2000 i do not believe that it costs more to run a linux server than a windows box. i read a story awhile back on how this company was switching from windows to linux and it was projecting a 5 year savings of over 90,000...?? That seems to me to be a significant amount of $ saved. plus linux is free while a copy of windows 2000 pro costs $199.99 and a copy of server with 5 licenses costs $697-$931: Windows 2000 Server with 150 Licenses $10,764.00 if you were to buy say redhat pro you would pay $119-$143 and redhat advanced server costs $799 if you know what you are doing then you should be able to fugure out how to make linux work... i love windows mainly because of its "out of the box" compatiblilty, but i do not agree with product activation of M$ new TCA Palladium crap and i will not let them control me or MY pc... if palladium becomes mainstream then i will burn my computers and only use ones at work rathern then to give M$ access to my machine anytime they want to look and see what software i havent renewed...if you pay $300 for the OS it should be yours NO MATTER WHAT... and if you pay $600 to get office you should be able to use it NO MATTER WHAT... but that is an entirely different discussion! Last edited by EcPercy; Dec 27, 2002 at 01:26 AM.

Dec 27, 2002, 01:21 AM	#5
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	In other unrelated news, Microsoft troops occupied the Torvalds home in an attempt to help the US economy. More news at 11. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Dec 27, 2002, 11:10 AM	#7
JLP DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Slovenia Posts: 249 Rep Power: 0	Nothing but lies It's crazy how much Microsoft lies. Linux more expensive to use then Windows and other needed software. Please give me a break. What do they think? That we are so stupid to believe them? In my fathers company they did a little math and figured out that they can save lots and lots of money by switching to Linux and OpenOffice.org. So the company is now taking steps to start moving to Linux. The sooner Microsoft dies the better.

Dec 26, 2002, 05:51 PM	#2
karlotta DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: oregon Posts: 83 Rep Power: 0	RedHat 8 is giving them a scare!

Dec 26, 2002, 07:59 PM	#3
ivan300 Booooo Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Vancouver Bc Posts: 236 Rep Power: 0	M$ is going down !!!

Dec 27, 2002, 03:56 AM	#6
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	If I had a machine I didn't care much about, I'd throw linux on it. Nuff said