Microsoft: Back to it's old tricks?

Microsoft: Back to its old ways?

By Martin LaMonica , CNET News.com

A fair and balanced article if ever there was one, and put out by Cnet no less. The article discusses the recent Longhorn and Office System 2003 announcements from Microsoft, asking the question if this is just another round of Microsoft's quest to ruthlessly crush any and all chance of competition while ratcheting up user and developer dependence, strapping them for years to come to the highly profitable upgrade treadmill.

I had two posts in the talkback section of the article. The first post (see “Fair and Balanced” below) points out that we don't have to wait for Longhorn. The effort to lock in future generations of users has begun with Office System 2003. The second post focuses on comments made by a Microsoft shill known as “no_ax_to_grind”.

“no_ax_to_grind” is said to be a key Microsoft engineer working on the Longhorn development team. He's taken the company line of defending everything by saying, “let the consumers decide”. It's his answer to everything.

The problem is that in most cases the consumer doesn't have a clear, unencumbered choice. So i challenge Axe to first level the playing field. Let the competition have an equal shot at providing for the consumers needs. Then we'll see how much they truly do appreciate paying Microsoft for the privilege of long term serfdom.

Axe, you're grinding again:

<Axe> “Bottom line, let the market place sort out the winner instead of a committee in a smoke filled back room somewhere. Let me put that differently, the consumer WILL be the one to establish the acceptable and most favored "standard" and anyone that doesn't understand that is fooling themselves. <..../Axe>

Axe, your grinding again. Open Source Communities, OASIS, and the W3C hardly qualify as smoke filled back rooms where the future of mankind is secretly plotted. What they do plot is highly transparent, royalty free, patent free, openly accessible standards proposals designed for global levels of participation. I think you may have confused your smoked filled back rooms Axe with what goes on in Redmond.

I have a challenge for you Axe. You sound as though you're willing to put your faith in the choice of consumers. If the marketplace of operating systems and applications were truly open, offering a level playing field for all competitors, i would agree with you. But that's not the case. Microsoft stands convicted of having used illegal means to both attain their monopoly, and maintain their monopoly.

The anti trust trial revealed a corporate culture based on some of the most reprehensible business practices known. In 1989, as the hype for the Windows 3.0 release began to gather steam, no one knew what the eventual cost of buying into the Windows platform would be. We saw an open hardware reference platform that would solve some truly knarly developer problems. Hardware vendors saw a level playing field where the faster, better, cheaper products would prevail. With the promise of an open Windows API, developers saw a level GUI application playing field being built upon a commoditized but vibrantly competitive hardware platform. Users, developers and hardware vendors alike bought into the critical mass promise of Windows.

What we didn't buy into the outright lies, deceits, deceptions, and reprehensible business practices that resulted in a monopoly where both our information and our information processes are under the thumb of a singe vendor.

Be that as it may, there is still a rather simple way to level the playing the field without resorting to the courts. Open the Win32 API.

In the past few weeks Microsoft has held the world's attention in rapture as they demonstrated the wondrous virtues of Office System and Longhorn. Clearly they are telling developers that the Win 32 API has reached the end of the line, to be replaced by a new programming model, the .NET API. Of course, to maintain backward compatibility, XP will run Win32 applications. But all support, security patches, and licensing for both the Win9x platform and the store of legacy Win32 applications bound to that platform, will cease.

It's been estimated (USAToday) that there are over 400 million Win9x users. It's also been estimated that there is less than 50 million XP installs. It's also clear that Microsoft has discontinued all support for the Win9x platform except to assist in the acceleration of migrating the great Win9x herd to XP.

Upwards of 95% of all desktop users are at a critical moment of choice. Do they cross that XP line? Or, do they make the leap to an alternative platform such as Linux or OSX?

My contention is that if the legacy of business critical Win32 applications, (and the legacy investments in Win32 applications in general), could easily be ported to other platforms, then the great herd of Win9x users would have a clear, unimpeded choice. A choice based on the appreciation of competitive platform features. A choice based on appreciation for the organizations, methods and business practices of those who stand behind each platform. A choice based on the future vision of each platform provider.

In short Axe, a choice based on a level playing field.

Open up the Win32 API, including the secret system calls Microsoft so ruthlessly used to crush their competition, and i don't care what kind of lock in you do with the current XP integrated stack, and on into the Longhorn end game. I'm fully confident that if the WiNE project ever got their hands on a complete disclosure of the Win32 API, consumers would have an unencumbered choice. And we would see a free market competition for the future of computing. One where we could honestly say, let the consumers decide. Let the best platform win.

And i make this challenge knowing full well that the XP Stack is a massive lock in scheme where the os, applications, tools, developer framework, and server suites are bolted together by a cascading entanglement of interdependencies that will never ever be unwound. Open up the Win32 API and you can do whatever the hell you want with the XP Stack and Longhorn. Just give consumers a fair chance to get out from under the heavily vested legacy trap brought on by an illegal monopoly.

And i say this knowing full well that monopolies, in and of themselves, are not illegal. It's how Microsoft attained their monopoly, and how they maintained that monopoly, that was ruled “illegal”. Nevertheless, i'm willing to concede that Microsoft owns the XP platform, and all the opportunities related to that platform, from the bottom of the software stack on up through the servers, the developers framework, the connectivity and communications protocols, and beyond.

Just set the great herd of Win9x users free to chose whether they really want to go the XP integrated stack route, or opt out for an alternative. Open the Win32 API, and i'll believe your holier than thou squawk about letting consumers choose.

~ge~

Fair & Balanced:

Excellent article Martin! I really appreciate the way you framed the core issues of Microsoft's latest end game strategy. However, i would argue that the effort to lock-in users and developers has already started. Longhorn is just the completion of an integrated stack model Microsoft launched with the XP generation of OS, Applications, Developer Tools, Server Suites, and the .NET framework.

In the week prior to the Longhorn PDC push, Microsoft's released the long anticipated XP Office 2003. They released the office suite as “Office System 2003”, directly targeting developers. The interesting thing about Office System is that it only runs on XP (or on W2K with service pack 3, which activates DRM and IRM), and all the new features require integrated actions with products outside the normal office productivity suite.

If users and developers want to activate all those wonderful collaborative computing features, they need to also have access to at least the core suite of XP Servers (Exchange, SharePoint, Server 2003).

There are over 400 million Win9x users. XP users number about 50 million. The push to migrate the entire herd of Win9x users has started. It will cost those Win9x users a fortune to join that next generation of collaborative computing Microsoft has reserved exclusively for the XP Stack. Where the os, applications, tools, framework, and server suites are bolted together with a cascading entanglement of interdependencies that neither developers, competitors, or the Department of Justice will never be able to unwind.

But what other choice does the great herd have?

They are trapped by critical legacy business applications and information system investments, that are in turn tied to hidden API's and proprietary file formats. Linux is ready as an OS replacement. OpenOffice.org and Mozilla.org are leading the charge of alternative cross platform productivity applications and developer tools. But the WiNE Project is not quite ready to crack the single greatest issue keeping the great herd of 400 million Win9x users tied to the Redmond mothership.

If the DOJ was to do one thing to restore competition, it would be to open up the Win 32 API so that legacy of heavily vested and critically important Win32 API applications could be ported to WiNE.

So while it's great that you point out in such a fair and balanced article the pitfalls and benefits of Longhorn, let's not lose sight of the fact that Batan march has already begun.

~ge~

Gary.Edwards@OpenStack.us

Indemnification Nazis' At It Again

CNET News: IBM Should Indemnify Open-Source Customers by Forester shill Julie Giera Sheesh! Makes me sick. The indemnification Nazis are at it again. All part of a days work i suppose. Work no doubt done on behalf of their sponsors in Redmond. This Cnet article is just the latest attempt to smear open source with the slime of unfounded fear, uncertainty and doubt. That the enemies of open source try to cloak their deceit in the smarmy posturing of supposedly “independent” technology experts fools no one. We know who's footing the bill here. We know where the money's coming from. We know these shameless shills are all competing for an even bigger pay day. What price does one sell their professional credibility for you ask? Without so much as a blink, these shills go charging up the hill of open source, yelling obscene half truths and unfounded accusations. Waving their sabers. Beating their chests. Defending the status quo with false bravado as their palms are quietly greased behind closed doors. And to the one who slays the GPL dragon go the keys to the monopolist kingdom. Here's the thing. Microsoft can't compete against GPL protected open source efforts unless they can add a “cost” factor. Indemnification “corporatizes” GPL'd code, adding significant “big corporations only” costs while greatly diminishing the core value of the GPL. The truth is that the GPL provides all the protection anyone using community created open source code would ever need. But when would the truth ever be allowed to stand in the way of a great business plan? The indemnification Nazis' are of course going to try to say the GPL isn't enough. If Microsoft can bring a legal “cost” to GPL'd efforts, they could then leverage their enormous advantages in distribution, marketing, and court room rodeo shows. Competing against zero cost solutions that can then be wrapped in many high end service oriented packages is more than a challenge. It's end game if Chairman Bill can't put some kind of cost on highly effective GPL'd OSS. What happens when users start focusing more on the “services”, and less on the underlying infrastructure code? Corporations like HP and Sun go along with the indemnification ruse because it enables them to wrap GPL'd code in a corporate layer that significantly narrows competition, while protecting the high cost proprietary solutions that have long served to fill their corporate coffers. Red Hat and IBM have chosen to stand up for the GPL. But the phony indemnification ruse is just the first shot across the bow. Armies of boot licking lackies and shameless shills are lining up everywhere to take their shot at the open source community organization model. For sure there are big pay days ahead for any boot licker who can make their argument stick. To me, the fundamental issue comes down to whether GPL protected open source community efforts will be embraced by corporations, or crushed. Those corporations who have embraced GPL OSC efforts are under attack from those corporations who see the threat. And not without reason. Open standards groups have replaced the traditional dictates of corporate consortium's where a small group of collaborators could use patents and royalty sharing agreements to crush opposition, and carve up markets at price levels they controlled. The GPL is so effective at protecting the IP of open source community efforts that it near guarantees that any effort gaining traction in the marketplace is likely to become an “open standard” in and of itself. Open interfaces, open standards, and open connectivity protocols are surging forward, more often than not within the protective wrappers of GPL packaging. If they can't stop the GPL with the costly indemnification ruse, with costly patent based legal assaults, with costly royalty extracting “access” licenses, or with phony copyright and contractual claims, then perhaps the final bell for the halcyon days of corporate racketeering and extortion has been rung. Oh how enronic! With many companies rushing to embrace GPL'd efforts as a means of harnessing massive resources at little cost, and achieving critical mass without having to live in fear of some gilded privileged consortium plot to loot the marketplace, the advantages of being a recidivist monopolist are diminished in value. Imagine that your Chairman Bill, and you've spent your entire life scheming, plotting, conniving, and deceiving to put the entire information systems industry under your boot heel. Imagine you even survived a federal court finding that you used illegal means to crush your competitors to attain and maintain your monopoly. Imagine having survived the conviction in a Federal court of the most reprehensible business practices known, including your secret exclusionary contract provisions, extortion efforts, and conspiratorial market splitting agreements. Imagine having survived all this and being in position to finally grind everyone into the dirt, extorting user and developer taxes as far into the future as anyone can see. Imagine, and the only thing that stands in your way is that insidiously pesky GPL. With a court order sanctioning the decree that Microsoft owns the Windows platform, and any and all opportunities within reach of that platform, things look good for the recidivist reprobate. Having decimated any semblance of corporate competition, for sure Chairman Bill can almost taste final triumph. Time to send in the armies of boot licking lackies and shameless shills. Whatever the cost. This is war on the GPL. ~ge~

Key Microsoft Agreement Clause Criticized
The Judge, the DOJ, and the States Attorney Generals are all surprised that so few companies have signed on and forked over the $50,000 (plus 1-5% royalties) for a Microsoft license permitting them the privilege of competing against Microsoft.
The licensing requirement was considered central since it would prevent Microsoft from locking out rival companies developing products that compete with Microsoft's own. Under the court-approved agreement, which expires in November 2007, Microsoft must offer such licenses under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms."
What are these clowns thinking? They seem to think they can "level the playing field" by leaving Microsoft in total control of the messaging and integration API's needed by independent developers to connect and develop on the Windows XP STack. They seem to think that the "risk" of challenging Microsoft on a platform where Redmond controls everything is simply a matter of licensing costs!
They've left Microsoft in control of the API's. They've left Microsoft in control of the licensing process, able to set permissions and favored access privileges wherever they see fit. And, they've left Microsoft able to tie, bind, and bolt anything they want to the operating system infrastructure.
Then they wonder why no one wants to invest their time, money and efforts competing against Microsoft!
I have a solution. Let Microsoft do whatever the hell they want with the entire Windows XP platform of XP OS's, XP Applications, XP Developer Tools, XP Middleware, and the XP .NET Framework.
But give users and independent developers a choice.
What kind of choice is that you ask?
The hold Microsoft has on both the user base and the developer community is that of legacy applications locked into the Win32 API, an entanglement of Win32 interdependecies, and Microsoft proprietary file formats that lock up near 70% of mankind's digitally unstructured content.
There are over 400 million Win9x users, affectionately called "The Great Herd". This is the Microsoft monopoly. And Microsoft is now asking them to spend billions migrating everything to the XP Stack.
The truth is that Microsoft is challenging the great herd to either migrate everything at great cost, or be left behind without support, security patches, and without the ability to run next generation collaborative applications or participate in the fourth wave.
The only way the DOJ and States can provide the great herd with a "choice" is to first focus in on the most basic level of choice, the omega point where the decision to migrate to the XP Stack, or hold has to be made. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover that the key issues facing the great herd are those of having critical legacy application investments locked into the Win32 API, and the bulk of their information assets locked into a cascading entanglement of proprietary interfaces, protocols, components and file formats.
I say give Microsoft a Hobbsian choice. Either continue support, upgrades, fixes and collaborative computing components to the Win9x installations, or, open up the Win32 API, interfaces. protocols, components and file formats of the abandoned Win9x platform so that users and developers can continue to leverage their heavily vested interests in ways that make economical sense.
If that means finally being able to port things to Linux, so be it. If that means providing the open documentation J2EE frameworks need to integrate with Win9x desktop applications, so be it.
It's insane that a free market DOJ and laissez-faire Judge would think that anyone in their right mind would risk investing in an effort to compete against Microsoft on a platform the courts have said Redmond owns with unrestricted entirety. Companies and independent developers should invest in this "competition" thinking the DOJ and Judge can control Microsoft and guarantee fairness? The very fact that Microsoft is required to "license" access to critical API's and components rather than fully disclose the interfaces speaks volumes! Competing Microsoft applications and services have privileged access to the system level that may or may not be disclosed in a licensed API. And then there's the cost of the license itself which gives Microsoft further competitive advantages. Not to mention that Microsoft continues to own the distribution channel and can shove their "competing applications" through the pipe, at will.
If the DOJ and Judge really want a level playing field, where competitors win or lose based on providing the faster, better, cheaper solutions to users, then they need to concentrate on providing users with unfettered choice. Either unlock the Win32 API and file formats, or, go back to the drawing board and split up Microsoft.
It's that simple.
~ge~

[News: Microsoft: Back to its old ways? ]

Microsoft: Back to its old ways?

By Martin LaMonica , CNET News.com

A fair and balanced article if ever there was one, and put out by Cnet no less. The article discusses the recent Longhorn and Office System 2003 announcements from Microsoft, asking the question if this is just another round of Microsoft's quest to ruthlessly crush any and all chance of competition while ratcheting up user and developer dependence, strapping them for years to come to the highly profitable upgrade treadmill.

I had two posts in the talkback section of the article. The first post (see “Fair and Balanced” below) points out that we don't have to wait for Longhorn. The effort to lock in future generations of users has begun with Office System 2003. The second post focuses on comments made by a Microsoft shill known as “no_ax_to_grind”.

“no_ax_to_grind” is said to be a key Microsoft engineer working on the Longhorn development team. He's taken the company line of defending everything by saying, “let the consumers decide”. It's his answer to everything.

The problem is that in most cases the consumer doesn't have a clear, unencumbered choice. So i challenge Axe to first level the playing field. Let the competition have an equal shot at providing for the consumers needs. Then we'll see how much they truly do appreciate paying Microsoft for the privilege of long term serfdom.

Axe, you're grinding again:

<Axe> “Bottom line, let the market place sort out the winner instead of a committee in a smoke filled back room somewhere. Let me put that differently, the consumer WILL be the one to establish the acceptable and most favored "standard" and anyone that doesn't understand that is fooling themselves. <..../Axe>

Axe, your grinding again. Open Source Communities, OASIS, and the W3C hardly qualify as smoke filled back rooms where the future of mankind is secretly plotted. What they do plot is highly transparent, royalty free, patent free, openly accessible standards proposals designed for global levels of participation. I think you may have confused your smoked filled back rooms Axe with what goes on in Redmond.

I have a challenge for you Axe. You sound as though you're willing to put your faith in the choice of consumers. If the marketplace of operating systems and applications were truly open, offering a level playing field for all competitors, i would agree with you. But that's not the case. Microsoft stands convicted of having used illegal means to both attain their monopoly, and maintain their monopoly.

The anti trust trial revealed a corporate culture based on some of the most reprehensible business practices known. In 1989, as the hype for the Windows 3.0 release began to gather steam, no one knew what the eventual cost of buying into the Windows platform would be. We saw an open hardware reference platform that would solve some truly knarly developer problems. Hardware vendors saw a level playing field where the faster, better, cheaper products would prevail. With the promise of an open Windows API, developers saw a level GUI application playing field being built upon a commoditized but vibrantly competitive hardware platform. Users, developers and hardware vendors alike bought into the critical mass promise of Windows.

What we didn't buy into the outright lies, deceits, deceptions, and reprehensible business practices that resulted in a monopoly where both our information and our information processes are under the thumb of a singe vendor.

Be that as it may, there is still a rather simple way to level the playing the field without resorting to the courts. Open the Win32 API.

In the past few weeks Microsoft has held the world's attention in rapture as they demonstrated the wondrous virtues of Office System and Longhorn. Clearly they are telling developers that the Win 32 API has reached the end of the line, to be replaced by a new programming model, the .NET API. Of course, to maintain backward compatibility, XP will run Win32 applications. But all support, security patches, and licensing for both the Win9x platform and the store of legacy Win32 applications bound to that platform, will cease.

It's been estimated (USAToday) that there are over 400 million Win9x users. It's also been estimated that there is less than 50 million XP installs. It's also clear that Microsoft has discontinued all support for the Win9x platform except to assist in the acceleration of migrating the great Win9x herd to XP.

Upwards of 95% of all desktop users are at a critical moment of choice. Do they cross that XP line? Or, do they make the leap to an alternative platform such as Linux or OSX?

My contention is that if the legacy of business critical Win32 applications, (and the legacy investments in Win32 applications in general), could easily be ported to other platforms, then the great herd of Win9x users would have a clear, unimpeded choice. A choice based on the appreciation of competitive platform features. A choice based on appreciation for the organizations, methods and business practices of those who stand behind each platform. A choice based on the future vision of each platform provider.

In short Axe, a choice based on a level playing field.

Open up the Win32 API, including the secret system calls Microsoft so ruthlessly used to crush their competition, and i don't care what kind of lock in you do with the current XP integrated stack, and on into the Longhorn end game. I'm fully confident that if the WiNE project ever got their hands on a complete disclosure of the Win32 API, consumers would have an unencumbered choice. And we would see a free market competition for the future of computing. One where we could honestly say, let the consumers decide. Let the best platform win.

And i make this challenge knowing full well that the XP Stack is a massive lock in scheme where the os, applications, tools, developer framework, and server suites are bolted together by a cascading entanglement of interdependencies that will never ever be unwound. Open up the Win32 API and you can do whatever the hell you want with the XP Stack and Longhorn. Just give consumers a fair chance to get out from under the heavily vested legacy trap brought on by an illegal monopoly.

And i say this knowing full well that monopolies, in and of themselves, are not illegal. It's how Microsoft attained their monopoly, and how they maintained that monopoly, that was ruled “illegal”. Nevertheless, i'm willing to concede that Microsoft owns the XP platform, and all the opportunities related to that platform, from the bottom of the software stack on up through the servers, the developers framework, the connectivity and communications protocols, and beyond.

Just set the great herd of Win9x users free to chose whether they really want to go the XP integrated stack route, or opt out for an alternative. Open the Win32 API, and i'll believe your holier than thou squawk about letting consumers choose.

~ge~

Fair & Balanced:

Excellent article Martin! I really appreciate the way you framed the core issues of Microsoft's latest end game strategy. However, i would argue that the effort to lock-in users and developers has already started. Longhorn is just the completion of an integrated stack model Microsoft launched with the XP generation of OS, Applications, Developer Tools, Server Suites, and the .NET framework.

In the week prior to the Longhorn PDC push, Microsoft's released the long anticipated XP Office 2003. They released the office suite as “Office System 2003”, directly targeting developers. The interesting thing about Office System is that it only runs on XP (or on W2K with service pack 3, which activates DRM and IRM), and all the new features require integrated actions with products outside the normal office productivity suite.

If users and developers want to activate all those wonderful collaborative computing features, they need to also have access to at least the core suite of XP Servers (Exchange, SharePoint, Server 2003).

There are over 400 million Win9x users. XP users number about 50 million. The push to migrate the entire herd of Win9x users has started. It will cost those Win9x users a fortune to join that next generation of collaborative computing Microsoft has reserved exclusively for the XP Stack. Where the os, applications, tools, framework, and server suites are bolted together with a cascading entanglement of interdependencies that neither developers, competitors, or the Department of Justice will never be able to unwind.

But what other choice does the great herd have?

They are trapped by critical legacy business applications and information system investments, that are in turn tied to hidden API's and proprietary file formats. Linux is ready as an OS replacement. OpenOffice.org and Mozilla.org are leading the charge of alternative cross platform productivity applications and developer tools. But the WiNE Project is not quite ready to crack the single greatest issue keeping the great herd of 400 million Win9x users tied to the Redmond mothership.

If the DOJ was to do one thing to restore competition, it would be to open up the Win 32 API so that legacy of heavily vested and critically important Win32 API applications could be ported to WiNE.

So while it's great that you point out in such a fair and balanced article the pitfalls and benefits of Longhorn, let's not lose sight of the fact that Batan march has already begun.

~ge~

Gary.Edwards@OpenStack.us

NewsForge: What Sun needs to do now to survive ... - by Chris Preimesberger - Yesterday's news about Sun Microsystems' huge net loss of $1.04 billion in its fiscal Q4 -- and more of the same expected for this current quarter -- puts squarely on the table some serious business issues that the company needs to address now if it intends to survive. ................ Summary: Good article, but is anyone listening? I don't think so. There seems to be near unanimous opinion that Sun doesn't listen to customers. So why should they listen to a long time admirer who gets it and is truly saddened by their demise? Sun wants to sell Solaris, not Linux. Meanwhile, their customers are moving to Linux in droves. So instead of becoming the finest integrated Linux – Solaris – Win9x Stack provisioner on earth, which is what their customers want, Sun stomps their feet, yelling at customers that they will forever be sorry they ever saved a bundle finally solving their enterprise interoperability problems by going to IBM. Go figure. But i've got other issues with Sun that were not mentioned in this fine article. They could have saved the world! When i heard the news about Sun's most recent initiative, The Java Enterprise System, i could have cried. What the hell are they thinking? At first glance, the JES, with it's Java Desktop configuration is cause for great excitement. I'm thinking to myself that Microsoft is charging towards a massively integrated XP Stack model for their next generation of computing. A complete end to end Microsoft only solution if ever there was one. And here comes Sun, with a beautifully engineered Java Stack initiative. Integration and interoperability top to bottom, including the desktop. Finally! Someone who gets it. Or so i thought. I'm thinking to myself that finally Sun is going to challenge Microsoft layer by layer up and down the XP Stack of integrated operating systems, productivity applications, developer tools, Middle ware, tightly bound server suites, and the .NET framework. What i find instead though is that Sun has decided to challenge Linux? What the? Sun has a choice i guess. They could decide to protect their big UNiX turf from migrating to a heterogeneous environment where Linux servers take on more and more of the enterprise load. Or, they could take the same exact Java Enterprise System and go after the great herd of over 350 Million Win9x users Microsoft is trying to migrate to the final solution, the XP Stack end game. Sun chose to protect their big UNiX turf from Linux. And i am in tears. I wonder what would have happened if Sun had taken the exact same JES strategy and said, “We're going to give our existing clients the best set of highly engineered choices ever offered. Solaris or Linux. Get the maximum ROI for the job at hand without compromising the integration of your enterprise stack. You decide. We deliver.” What would happen if Sun came out and said that they were going to push Solaris up the stack to mission critical services. And become the finest Linux provider in the burgeoning arena of integrated stack providers? If they had taken a pro Linux, pro GPL, anti SCO approach (like IBM), and decided to service the pants off their existing client base rather than shove proprietary turnstiles down their throats, is they had taken this approach wouldn't their clients think twice before switching to IBM? Linux isn't Sun's problem. It's their inability to compete with companies like IBM who know that if they don't provide customers with faster, better, cheaper integrated systems, someone else will. Linux is like the climate. It's there. Learn to do business in an open source climate, or head for the caves. Sun chose the caves. The coming release of XP Office 2003 is the capstone to the XP Stack strategy. To realize the next generation collaborative computing features of XP Office, users have to have Microsoft servers. A common XP Server suite would include Exchange, SharePoint, and Server 2003 with Active Directory. The cascading entanglement of interdependencies the XP Stack environment will spawn is breathtaking. To make use of any of the advanced features, “all” collaborating users must be running the entire stack. This is end game. Once users cross that XP line with XP Office 2003, those XP servers are going to start showing up in the glass house by necessity. From there it's just a matter of time until Microsoft takes it all. Sun no doubt suffers from the traditional UNiX hubris that no desktop vendor could ever mount a big iron challenge. For the life of me i can't imagine that anyone would underestimate Chairman Bill. But here we go again. Microsoft has proven time and again that the desktop user interface “is” the point of control for all access to information systems. They were willing to murder Netscape and savage Java to protect their control over that interface. Having legally established that they own the Windows platform and can do what they want, Microsoft's is about to teach the big iron guys a lesson, and extend their influence right into the server room without a competitive peep. Do the J2EE and UNiX crowd really think they will be able to whip saw the XP Stack in the same way they could integrate with Win9x? IMHO, the interdependencies built into the XP Stack are so entangling, no one will know where the J2EE stopped and the .NET stuff began. By the time they figure it out, it will be too late. The thing to do is of course go after the 350 Million Win9x users that Microsoft absolutely must migrate to the XP Stack if they are to succeed. The great herd “is” the monopoly! And they've left it hanging out to dry. Sun put their money and engineering efforts into three critical community movements, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla.org, and Java. I thought for sure they were lining things up to challenge Microsoft for the right and privilege of moving the great Win9x herd into the next generation of collaborative computing. Why else spend so much time and effort on key cross platform productivity areas? Yet, here they are. The stars are aligned in Sun's favor. The moment to pounce has come. 350 Million users in the balance. Nearly the entire Microsoft monopoly! And Sun decides that now is the time to stop Linux? I would go to the nearest pub and drown my self in a brew of sorrow. But i think the place will be filled with Sun engineers, drowning in their own river of tears. What do you do when the guys making the decisions just don't get it? We have met the enemy, he is us. He is all of us who have steadfastedly believed in Sun management, when there was every indication that they are simply not up to the task. They just don't get it. ~ge~

Linux Under Lock & Key: Comment: This InformationWeek article, "HP's Big Bet", champions HP's offer to indemnify HP Linux customers in response to SCO threats. Well gee whiz, SCO also champions HP's offer and wonders what the other Linux distros are waiting for. To me the HP indemnification strips Linux users of all the open source “GPL” attributes that make Linux so much better than proprietary alternatives. HP strips out the GPL by repackaging the code under their indemnification terms. Leaving users with Linux the operating system ~ application host, but dependent on HP. No thanks. This is a shallow scheme to destroy the GPL, and all the open source communities dependent upon GPL protection. A protection from proprietary companies bent on raping, pillaging, and plundering the bloom of open source community efforts. Linux with hand cuffs? You have to ask yourself why SCO is urging Linux distributors to “indemnify” their customers the same way HP has. Why would SCO compliment HP for properly protecting their customers, and in the same breath diss IBM who has legally taken SCO to task and is defending in court the provisions of the GPL? Something is rotten in Utah, and InformationWeek has bought into the stink. The HP indemnification strips the open source freedoms from Linux, leaving HP users with a proprietary packaging putting HP in control of Linux based information infrastructures. No wonder SCO and Sun are rushing o indemnify. These companies are hemorrhaging. UNiX shops are embracing Linux at the low ends of their enterprise stacks, and the cabal of SCO, HP and Sun fully realize that there is no way to box in Linux unless they can lock up user access to the source code. In that way they can control the implementation and integration interfaces so critical to keeping the money train of their costly UNiX solutions rolling. The simple truth is that for proprietary vendors, the GPL transfers to users more than just the source code. It transfers control. Control over the future of their information systems. Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but the issue of indemnification, phony as it is, is based on the thinking that Linux users are concerned about being caught up in the SCO extortion scheme. Indemnification from SCO extortion comes by way of a warranty stating that the Linux distro provider will cover legal and licensing expenses. Of course this would make it easy for SCO to coerce protection fees. This is an easy decision for bean counters to make. The effect of this is to officially sanction extortion for the use of open source community efforts. Your article makes the incredible insinuation that somehow this legal indemnification is common with all proprietary licenses, in stark contrast to the GPL. “.......... While it's common for makers of proprietary software to protect customers from intellectual-property infringement claims, such protection hasn't been offered with open source because the software's lineage isn't as clear cut, says Melise Blakeslee, a partner with law firm McDermott, Will & Emery. With open source, she says, users are getting the software "as is." HP's offer to take responsibility for any SCO Group claims will likely reassure customers, Blakeslee says........” What a load of crap! It is not “common for makers of proprietary software to protect customers from intellectual-property infringement claims” beyond the purchase price of the software! There is simply no equivalence between the purchase cost refund “protection” proprietary vendors warrant in their EULA's, and the legal – extortion licensing scheme SCO, HP, Microsoft and Sun have hung on the GPL Linux indemnification issue. Who in their right mind would call the common EULA “indemnification”? Oh yeah. There are those who seek to so totally confuse everyone so that they stop asking questions about saving money, complying with open standards, demanding open interfaces, and seeking end to end integration of the many costly but disconnected sub systems that comprise their information infrastructure. ~ge~

Tim O'Reilly continues his arguments, "that in each generation of technology, market power ultimately accretes to the players who are able to turn what they do into a platform that enables others, rather than just a standalone application." Reader and long time mainframe platform developer Mario Morino responds to this argument saying that openning up the platform API to greater partticipation not only provided a way for the platform to, "entrench itself through APIs that encouraged other development, it also created an enormous psychological advantage as it built a base of ardent followers who were not simply consumers, but active, contributing participants." I wanted to take this argument even further, applying the "particpation principle" to the battle between the participation by permission model driving Microsoft's XP Stack collaborative computing proposal, and, the open particpation model offered by the emerging Internet API, the Open STack. This argument requires a traipse through recent history: Permission based Participation Platform participation is an interesting insight Tim. Somehow this morning i stumbled my way from Jon's Radio commentary concerning RSS accelerated participation, to David Reed's GFN work, “That Sneaky Exponential—Beyond Metcalfe's Law to the Power of Community Building”. Reed's Law simply states that; “Networks that support the construction of communicating groups create value that scales exponentially with network size”. Your work on applying the O'Reilly version of Reed's Law to information infrastructures and business processing systems, casts the entire issue of a platform API in a new light. Is the API participation deal a “participation by permission”, or is it a “participation by need and opportunity”? Reed's Law introduces another interesting concept, that of “potential participation” being a hidden accelerator of a platform's collaborative value. “The value of potential connectivity is the value of the set of optional transactions that are afforded by the system or network.” “Optional transactions”. “Potential Participation”. Humm. Applying that thought to your information platform arguments, one quickly realizes that the platform with the most open and permissive API would soon reflect the higher values hidden in the exponentials of “optional” participation. Unless of course there is some sort of marketplace distortion at work. Perhaps one where the platform with the greatest participation level, has also been shown to be one where the “options” of both opportunities and necessity are artificial. The truth being discovered after the fact of significant platform investment, that all the opportunities belong to a single platform vendor, or to those whom that vendor favors. A costly tragedy no doubt. But one from which the information systems markets will learn a new lesson. Emerging platforms will have to offer extreme levels of open transparency to lower the risk of future investments being lost through the deceptions possible with permission based API's. Call it Open Source. Call it Shared Source. Call it Community Source (the Java Community Process). Clearly there are new rules in the marketplace for information systems. Nothing is more transparent than open and unfettered access to the source code. Clearly it can also be said that the water of platforms markets has been poisoned. Perhaps forever. No proprietary vendor is likely to ever get the chance Microsoft had, to be entrusted by hardware systems manufacturers, application developers, and users, with such a critical part of the global information infrastructure. This is no longer about innovation, superior engineering, or technical brilliance. It's about the trust factor demanded by a platforms participation promise. No trust, no participation value proposition. The “options” factor in Reed's Law of participation fascinates me. Users, developers, and those who invest in systems development are all caught in the quest to have their cake and eat it too. The Windows platform has the greatest level of participation. But it also has highest “opportunity” risk factor, due to the least permisive API. The entire XP Stack - .NET framework is opaque. The platform is a dark uncertainty where any and all opportunities belong to the platform vendor. It's just a matter of if and when opportunities become profitable enough for the Emperor to seize them. And the Emperor is quite content to let others invest and grow a market category, knowing full well that when the opportunity is ripe, he can swoop in and seize it at will. The mere announcement that the Emperor is thinking about entering a market category is enough to decimate the competition and scatter their efforts to the wind. If the exponential value of a platform is based on “potential connectivity”, not actual, then we might say that the open source “API” alignment of the Internet, Linux, and the endless sprawl of Open Source Community application and middleware efforts would clearly have the highest “value” potential. The “potential connectivity” value of an open source platform having a transparency, trust and inclusive participation proposition that is without parallel. I also think there is near unanimous consensus that this is true. As the comments from Mario prove, systems providers have long known that the most “participatory” platform wins. And, the most permissive, transparent, inclusive, and openly accessible platform API's are at the core of the participation promise that will make or break any platform. I first became a Windows developer in 1989. We worked long and hard to convince users and developers alike that Windows was the platform of the future. Microsofties even provided us with the unverified and now highly suspect claim that 99% of all future applications development was taking place on Windows. We believed this crap and repeated it verbatim precisely because we knew that if Windows didn't reach a critical mass of participation, our efforts and investments were for naught. We were greedy. We deceived. It worked. Then we were unceremoniously hoist on our own petard by our trusted benefactor. The key factors for me then were that of a 32 bit GUI interface riding the open market innovation wave of commoditized hardware. What Chairman Bill promised early Windows developers was three fold. Microsoft would provide an open hardware reference platform that would feed the innovative frenzy of hardware component makers, even as commoditization drove the prices of pc systems ever downward. Chairman Bill assured the nascent Windows developer community that Windows would ship on every DOS machine, whether users ordered it or not. It was up to developers to take it from there, convincing users to load and learn Windows in order to reap the developers application benefits. The first two parts of the Microsoft promise to developers, mass distribution and falling systems costs, were faithfully carried out. Windows did a magnificent job of also reducing the complexities of application programming and systems configuration. Chairman Bill promised a simplification of the hardware reference (drivers), while expanding the hardware options. Beautifully done! The third part of Chairman Bill's promise was that the Windows API (Win32) would be open and equally accessible to all developers. Uh oh. This third part of the “participatory” deal was critical to developers and their investors. Recall that Apple, with the MacIntosh, had at the time a proven GUI with a comparatively open API, but a closed hardware reference. Since Apple was a hardware maker and systems configurator themselves, they missed the entire sweep of component innovation and commoditization that Microsoft seized upon and so artfully exploited. The Windows participation deal rested upon the potential value of the Windows platform reaching critical mass with the enormous market place of then, non computing users. Microsoft presented a compelling plan to developers to reach that critical mass. A plan where everyone would benefit through exploding opportunities. The open API part of the participation deal was so important that Chairman Bill had to personally assure and promise developers that there was a “Chinese Wall” between the Windows OS division, and the Microsoft Applications and Developer Tools divisions. The playing field had to be level if Windows were to get the critical developer (and investor) buy in they needed to become the dominant user interface to information systems platform. The whole “Chinese Wall” scam came crashing down with Andrew Schulman's publication, “Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api Functions” Andrew's disclosure that the playing field was not level, that there was no “Chinese Wall”, hit the developer community hard. The risk of investing in Windows platform opportunities went from that of competing on a level playing field where the best effort wins, to one where no matter what you do, any and all opportunities belonged to Microsoft. It was just a matter of if and when categories of opportunity became profitable enough for the Emperor to seize them. And everyone soon came to realize that the Emperor could seize opportunities with the mere announcement that they intended to enter a category. The original participation deal had been so compromised by these disclosures that investors soon realized that, as their Windows opportunities investment risk went vertical, Microsoft had near zero risk for entering any category on the Windows platform, nascent or mature. And knowing the certainty of successful opportunity seizure, the Emperor could well afford to encourage and even pour on the support for competitors venturing to grow a new Windows platform market category. Within a year of Andrew's publication, and in the wake of the Netscape IPO, the Win32 API lemmings were rushing to the Internet. The Internet, an extraordinary platform of universal connectivity and exchange. But hardly the alternative computation platform these developers were looking for. Still, the promise of massive participation, on a global level no less, sent them swarming to the web. The threshold of participation was now within the grasp of near anyone with access to a phone line. If Netscape could break the Redmond lock on the Win32 API, by riding over it to create a new collaborative computing environment outside Microsoft's control, the carefully guarded gateway to the great mass of Win32 users might be breached. Open opportunities could be had at a much lower risk. The web participation potential was off the scale. There is no doubt in my mind that half the problem Netscape faced was fear within the developer and investment community that we would be deposing one dictator in favor of another. A possibility Microsoft was always quick to point out. Many with a heavily vested interest in the Win32 ecolopoly, both developers and users, joined the chorus. Their fear of a ruthless and ever hungry Microsoft being offset by the very real possibility that the participation value of the platform they were vested in would be seriously diminished if developers and users fled to a Netscape API. IMHO, i really do think the Win32 ecolopoly would welcome with open arms a non corporate, Internet API. As long as they could continue to eke value out of their Win32 investments, while also being able to make that transition to next generation collaborative computing, i would think the ecolopoly would welcome an XP Stack alternative. Significantly though, regarding platforms, the “corporate” waters have been poisoned, and it happened long before the anti trust trial. In crushing Netscape and trying to destroy Java, Microsoft also destroyed the essence of the Windows platform participation value equation. The only hope they have is in keeping the Win32 ecolopoly chained to the migration towards their next generation platform offering. A very tricky proposition, as they must also make the difficult transition from a pc-centric model to a collaborative-centric computing model. One has to admire the sweeping completeness of the XP Stack - .NET platform proposition. Even though it shamelessly pushes to unprecedented levels the tying, bolting, and screwing into the XP Stack every key collaborative connectivity aspect, the platform is beautifully designed to ring in that next generation of collaborative computing, the Fourth Wave. It would seem to me though that beautiful designs of sweeping well architected and integrated systems are not enough. A platform must challenge all comers on the basis of the participatory connectivity value proposition. Reed's Law insists that it is no longer enough to just connect to the network. The value of simple connectivity is near nothing compared to that of collaborative connectivity. The Fourth Wave is one where the collaboration is not just between workgroups and communities of users and developers. The collaboration must also include the many shapes and sizes of information machines those knowledge workers need to make sense of digital global participation. Few can continue to ignore or doubt the impact of the rapidly expanding galaxies of Open Source Community efforts now roiling across the universal carrier grid, the Internet. These communities live by and write to emerging Internet API's. Owned by no one. Shared by all. ~ge~ Gary.Edwards@OpenStack.us OpenOffice.org community representative serving on the OASIS Open Office XML TC, and, the OASIS UBL TC That Sneaky Exponential—Beyond Metcalfe's Law to the Power of Community Building”. The whole “Chinese Wall” scam came crashing down with Andrew Schulman's publication, “Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api Functions” Fourth Wave

[News: Will Longhorn rope everything together?] DIR="LTR">

“Will Longhorn rope everything together? ......... With the regulatory reins somewhat loosened, Microsoft is moving ahead with plans to more tightly integrate the development of Windows, Office and its other programs. “

Wow. With the upcoming release of next generation Longhorn integrated stack, the Redmond double speak engine has shifted into high gear. Longhorn is probably still a year away from release. The job of re defining key “integration and inter operability” descriptive terms such as “tying”, “bolting”, “synchronizing”, “tighter integration” has begun.

With the expected November release of XP Office 2003, Microsoft begins the heavy task of migrating the 300 million strong Win32 ecolopoly to the XP Stack. This signals an overdue recognition on Microsoft's part that the era of pc-centric computing ahs ended, and they must make that transition to a collaborative computing model. The Fourth Wave has begun.

I would be the first to argue that collaborative computing is exactly defined by the Internet pervasive wave of tight integration between inter operable components across the entire stack of operating systems (devices, desktops, servers), applications, tools, and server suites, that Longhorn promises. The XP Stack model is beautifully tied together by the .NET framework, giving developers direct access to inter operale components that ride across the integrated stack.

I have to agree with fellow OOo enthusiast George Mitchell when he points out that, with the anti trust settlement, the government has put an end to many of Microsoft's reprehensibly predatory business practices. But it has not opened up in anyway a semblance of competition on the Windows platform. In fact, just the oppostie has happened. Bolting, tying, and privledged access to system internals will have Microsoft in total control of Windows opportunities for years to come. It's so pervasive, that we no longer think in terms of competition on the Windows platform. We think strictly in terms fo competition between platforms. As in Linux vs. Windows, or .NET vs J2EE.

More on “All The Mashed Potatoes”.

~ge~