If they haven't hit your PC already, they're on their way.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 08, 20090 comments
Well, now that's a headline that ought to get picked up by a search engine or two (or one, most importantly). Google News, we'll scale your castle walls one way or another! Microsoft! Linux! Patents! Open source! Communists! We're going to go hash-tag crazy when we post this one on Twitter...
Anyway, the post-Labor Day (here in the U.S.) news is that something called the Open Invention Network -- or OIN (catchy) -- looks likely to buy a bunch of patents that Microsoft sold earlier this year to a patent-protection company, the CEO of which is pictured here (OK, not really).
Pretty boring, right? Well, not really, because the OIN (couldn't they have found a way to stick a "K" on the end of it?) includes such prominent members as IBM, Red Hat and Sony. And the patents relate to -- cue the suspenseful music -- Linux. Maybe. We think, anyway. Nobody seems to be totally sure at this point, with the possible exceptions of Microsoft, the OIN and Tony Soprano.
Now, as we know, Microsoft has saber-rattled for years now about how Linux violates hundreds of Microsoft patents. But that's not what OIN's acquisition is about, as far as we can tell. First of all, Microsoft doesn't own these patents anymore, so it's unlikely -- actually impossible -- for Microsoft to use them to threaten Linux or Linux vendors.
Beyond that, as Redmond columnist Mary Jo Foley points out, there are a lot of unanswered questions here, and there's a fair amount of confusion about exactly why OIN is so hot to get these patents. The patents themselves appear to be a set that Microsoft purchased from SGI in 2002; there are 22 of them, apparently, and they have to do with (no surprise here) graphics (and, possibly -- or probably -- Linux). Microsoft officials say that Redmond sold the patents because they played no role in the company's future.
So, what's going on here? The folks at the OIN say that they want to protect Linux users from patent trolls. But those trolls don't live in Redmond. In fact, Microsoft seems pretty nonchalant about the whole thing. So, is this a Linux caper with Microsoft lurking in the shadows, or is it just a boring patent transaction?
We don't know, but we're going to stretch this into a double (that's a baseball reference for our non-U.S. friends) by running some long-promised reader e-mails about the Free Software Foundation, our favorite Bolsheviks (just kidding...mostly). As always, to contribute to reader e-mails, send your thoughts to [email protected].
Writes Greg:
"I don't think and don't believe calling the FSF communist is correct or right. First off, communism has nothing to do with freedom. Wanting to be able to do what you want with something after purchasing it is not wrong and should be the consumer's right. The FSF is not against capitalism. They have no problem with selling free and open source software. The 'Free' in their name is free as in free speech.
"On the other hand, when you purchase Microsoft software, they lay down a bunch of rules on what you can't do with your software. I would say Microsoft borders more on the communist side, especially with tactics used to get to where they are now -- an illegal monopoly, and the Justice Department agreed. How much harm would it cause Microsoft if they continue to sell their software yet make it free? They would still make plenty of money with the ridiculous prices they charge. Currently, what does the cost do? There are parts in EULA that clearly state Microsoft is not responsible if its products screw up your computer. The support is quite limited, as well. You get one or two support calls before they start a tab for paid support. I am a user of both MS and Linux with my background coming being mostly MS."
Greg, thanks for the e-mail. Let's try to take this bit by bit. First off, we at RCPU don't claim to be experts on the FSF, but everything we've heard or read about the organization has had a pretty strong anti-capitalist undertone (including Richard Stallman's speech in Cuba, of all places, a few years back). Still, despite the Bolshevik jokes, when we talk about the FSF being communists, we mean actual communists -- as in people who live on a commune and share everything -- rather than iron-fisted Soviet-style communists.
A lot of what you say about Microsoft is true. The company does sometimes heavily restrict what users can do with the software they've purchased, and Microsoft is very fond of trying to get its software to phone back home to Redmond in something of a big-brother way. (Windows Genuine Advantage, anyone?) Plus, yes, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. No argument there. But the way Microsoft operates is closer to fascism than communism, except for one thing: There are alternatives to Microsoft. Companies and individuals, now more than ever, can acquire non-Microsoft products if they don't like the way Redmond does business. And they are. (By the way, we are not -- repeat, not -- calling Microsoft a fascist company, although it could lighten some of its policies for users.)
As for Microsoft continuing to sell software yet make it free, we assume you mean free as in open source. The problem, the way we see it, is that ultimately it's intellectual property that makes money. If everything's free (especially in the software industry) and everybody can tinker with it, resell it, whatever...then products have little or no value. Google, a friend to open source, doesn't give away its search algorithms. KFC, as far as we know, still hasn't divulged the Colonel's secret recipe. And when Homer revealed the ingredients of the Flaming Moe on The Simpsons, Moe's Tavern lost its cache -- and its business.
That's all because secrets can be valuable in business. Microsoft knows this. Partners know this. The Free Software Foundation doesn't seem to get it. And while its vision might be lovely and utopian (as the vision of true communism almost always is), it's also completely impractical and unworkable (as true communism usually ends up being).
On the same subject, James writes:
"Reading your article brings to mind a very important practice that Microsoft has implemented, which should make every other OS vendor take notice: They actually search for leaks in their software products to prevent hacking! Name me one other software or OS vendor that has the depth of support and software integrity assurance that Microsoft diligently provides in real time. Even though they took a big hit by releasing Vista as the next big thing, the protection level of their products is second to none. When any of their competitors can match that level, then maybe we can sing a different tune. Just because Apple or UNIX/Linux vendors haven't seen the level of hacking or intrusion that Microsoft has endured, doesn't make them a better choice for operating systems. I say bring on Windows 7, and may the best man win!"
James, we think you're right on, but we'd also like to give third parties and partners an enormous amount of credit for keeping Windows clean and usable. Still, they're part of that support you're talking about -- it comes from Redmond, from third parties and from the channel. And it is pretty hard to beat, even though Microsoft is public enemy No. 1 for troublemakers.
Finally, RCPU e-mail legend Peter (in Australia) weighs in:
"I had a look at that stuff from the 'Free Software Foundation' you posted. There's only 40 million Linux units out there, and probably not many more UNIX systems, so I don't think Bill's mates have got too much to worry about in their quest for world domination...ha ha.
"However, they [the FSF] certainly raise some fundamental questions (think Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, et al philosophically) about 'freedom of the individual' from being constantly monitored by some big brother. I just assume that everything I write is in the public domain and that I can already be constantly monitored, but most of the time I'm not fussed about that. We all get filmed a zillion times a day just walking around town.
"Come to think of it, the only thing protecting us all from the apparently-benign Google is their corporate slogan: 'Do No Evil.'"
Peter, we think it's "Don't Be Evil," but that's the same difference. And we all know that some of Google's motives have come into question, to say the least, in recent years. As for the FSF, it does make a lot of valid points about how Microsoft treats its customers and does business, points somebody in Redmond should take to heart. Again, though, it's the generally anti-capitalist tone of just about everything we've seen from the FSF that bothers us. And as for ol' Tom, Ben and their revolutionary friends -- well, many of them were businessmen, and they probably would be much bigger fans of Microsoft than of the FSF if they were around today. Just a guess.
We've promised some specific readers that we'll run their e-mails, and we will; keep watching this space. We'll try to get to more this week. In the meantime, reply, rebut or reinforce at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 08, 20093 comments
Microsoft really wants to you leave XP behind. Microsoft also wants you to forget about Vista altogether (although nobody in Redmond would ever come out and say that). And Microsoft really, really wants you to buy Windows 7.
The final sentence of the preceding paragraph, while not exactly a surprise, became that much more obvious this week, as Microsoft revealed that it'll offer Windows 7 Enterprise to companies for a free 90-day trial. (There's more detail about availability and such here.)
Windows 7's arrival -- still scheduled for Oct. 22 -- is so close, and we've said so much about it already, that we're not going to blather on again here about what might be the most important product Microsoft has ever released. It's just a waiting game now, with a free trial from Microsoft thrown in for good measure.
What we'll do, instead, is give you a couple of links to stories that go way deep into Windows 7. These are the cover stories of the print issue of Redmond magazine for September, but they're just as interesting online as they are on paper. First, J. Peter Bruzzese, who knows his way around Windows, shares his "7 Wonders of Windows 7." Then, Gary Olsen finds "10 Reasons to Love Windows 7" (and a few reasons not to like it so much).
Shameless self-promotion of a sister magazine in RCPU? Yeah, that's pretty much what this is. But they're great articles, very much worth a read -- just the way that Windows 7, we figure, is worth a free download.
We will have an issue of RCPU the Tuesday after Labor Day, and it'll be full of reader e-mails -- this time, we mean it. Get yours in on any topic you like at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 03, 200921 comments
It's the community technology preview of the embedded operating system once known as "Quebec."
Microsoft had to release a preview and ditch the code name because the OS kept threatening to break away from the rest of Canada.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 03, 20090 comments
Here's a new front in the browser wars. If Microsoft is going to embed IE into Windows, then Google will go after OEMs -- in this case, Sony, which will offer Chrome as its default browser on VAIO PCs. Scott Baio, whose name sort of looks like VAIO when it's spelled out, has not officially commented so far. As far as we know, anyway.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 03, 20090 comments
There's so much going on at VMworld that we're not going to attempt to cover it all here. But Keith Ward, who's at the show, will be covering it all -- and it's on his blog.
Just one thing, though. Keith reveals in his blog that he doesn't like Foreigner, the '80s band that's headlining VMworld's entertainment. (We really are in a recession, aren't we?) Oh, Keith, you are as cold as ice. Don't you want to know what love is? Come to think of it, maybe Foreigner wasn't so good after all. But get your lighters or cell phones or whatever people use at concerts now ready for that last link. It's power-ballad time!
Posted by Lee Pender on September 03, 20090 comments
How long does the operating system have to live? A very long time, probably. But how much longer will Windows be a major revenue driver for Microsoft? That's another question altogether. The same question applies to the productivity suite, otherwise known to most users as Microsoft Office.
Both stalwart Microsoft moneymakers are under attack again, but this time, the competition looks fierce. The New York Times published this week an interesting piece about how Google and VMware are putting the squeeze on Microsoft by attacking with Web-based applications (Google Apps) and virtualization (VMware, obviously). Here's the crux of the NYT's argument:
"Google, the search giant, offers...alternatives to Microsoft's popular Office products. For Web-based programs like these, it is the browser -- not an operating system like Windows -- that is the vital layer of software on the computer.
"VMware is the leader in so-called virtual machine software, which allows a computer to run two or more operating systems at once. Its software resides on top of the hardware and beneath the operating system.
"But as VMware's technology becomes more powerful and it adds more features to its products, it can start to supplant the operating system from below -- just as the browser can from above."
OK, so it's not anything you haven't heard before. And, for the sake of this discussion, let's drop Google Apps' threat to Office. It might eventually be very real, but it's still minimal right now. The real point of interest here concerns the future of the operating system itself. From Google's perspective, the pathway to making the operating system irrelevant is pretty obvious: Make the browser (and the cloud) the basis of accessing applications, and the operating system doesn't really matter anymore.
And then there's VMware. This week at VMworld, the company unveiled vCenter, a suite of management products that, while quite logically focused on virtualization management, sure looks like a potential entry into the market currently occupied by Microsoft products such as System Center Operations Manager.
"Our overall vision is to help IT run technology as a business," Melinda Wilkin, senior director of marketing at VMware, told RCPU last week. She said the goal of vCenter was to provide "a whole new modeling for fundamentally managing service levels in the datacenter."
Obviously, that's pretty much marketing speak (and, to be fair, Wilkin did later get into specifics, which the linked press release covers very well), but listen to the language that VMware is using here. It's very broad. Yes, we're talking about virtualization and virtual environments, but VMware folks aren't using the word "virtual" as much as they used to. They're just talking application management now.
In other words, VMware doesn't want to be a niche company anymore. It's a virtualization vendor, sure, but the idea -- as far as we can tell -- is to make virtualization the foundation of enterprise computing, not just a handy little cost-cutting accessory for it. And, as desktop virtualization grows in functionality and popularity, the operating system becomes less and less important. Here's another quote from the NYT article:
"In August, the company announced that it planned to pay $420 million to acquire SpringSource, a maker of open-source software development tools, some of which analyze and tweak the performance of applications. Adding such features could allow VMware's technology to essentially sidestep an operating system like Windows."
Analysts say that virtualization does put Windows sales -- specifically Windows Server revenues -- at risk. And Microsoft isn't alone in feeling the pinch; Linux is taking it on the chin, too. Of course, Microsoft is aware of all this and is busy combating Google with Office Web Apps and taking on VMware with Hyper-V and other associated virtualization products.
But the difference between the threats of today and the threats of the past are that today's competitors can skirt Windows altogether with new technologies. Microsoft crushed everybody when the game was OS vs. OS, but -- to borrow a phrase from the '90s -- the paradigm is shifting. Windows was always Microsoft's ace in the hole, the lockdown on the desktop that meant that the road to market share always went through (and usually stopped in) Redmond.
Now, though, Microsoft is behind Google in terms of Web-based productivity apps (although client-installed Office obviously still leads the overall productivity suite market), and Redmond is struggling to catch up with VMware, which is still the runaway leader in virtualization and, let's not forget, is a company that's joined at the hip with storage titan EMC and has the resources to withstand a challenge from Microsoft.
Of course, Windows isn't likely to go anywhere any time soon, and the hype surrounding Windows 7 suggests that the OS will be a revenue producer for Microsoft for some time to come. But the technological landscape is changing, and suddenly Microsoft and many of its partners find themselves battling in unfamiliar territory. Microsoft has to keep Windows relevant while also developing competitive technologies outside of its comfort zone that take the focus off of the OS and fit into new computing models. It'll be a challenge...but never, ever count out Microsoft in a fight.
Incidentally, VMware and its partners have generated a slew of news already at VMworld this week. And Microsoft, in its effort to come from behind, has released some virtualization and systems management products of its own; these are aimed at mid-size businesses. Stay tuned to RCPU and VirtualizationReview.com for more news from the show.
What's your take on virtualization's threat to Windows? How well do you think Microsoft is dealing with shifting technology models? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 02, 20092 comments
There was quite a bit of hubbub last week about Microsoft holding sessions with lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, D.C. with the intent of getting Google into some sort of regulatory trouble. And, as we all know, Microsoft knows all about regulatory trouble.
Well, Microsoft has downplayed -- in fact, denied that it even holds -- what have come to be rather crudely called "screw Google" meetings. Our take on this: Who cares?
The "screw Microsoft" movement in the technology industry has a long and continuing history (and sometimes makes very valid points), so it only seems like a reasonable competitive move for Microsoft to try to help "screw" somebody else, namely one of its biggest competitors.
Of course, we're not fans of overzealous government intervention in any industry, so we kind of wish these meetings weren't even relevant. But they are -- if they're even happening. And is Microsoft doing anything evil by (allegedly) holding them? Nah. It's business as usual. Smart business, actually.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 01, 20090 comments
Microsoft Partner Program, we hardly knew ye. Well, that's not true; we actually knew ye quite well. But ye are not long for this world (how far can we carry this?) and will soon -- well, within 16 months -- be replaced by the Microsoft Partner Network. RCP the magazine Editor in Chief Scott Bekker goes into great detail about the MPN here.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 01, 20090 comments
We're taking a break from running reader e-mails this week, although we've got plenty more to run and will get back to them (probably) next week. This week, though, we just couldn't resist the return of the Red Menace, the Free Software Foundation.
Yes, the industry's favorite communists are back, this time with a very nasty Web site that (guess what?) attacks Microsoft and Windows 7. The "Windows 7 Sins" site details the FSF's objections to Windows 7, Microsoft, proprietary software and presumably the American capitalist system. It also encouraged people to meet on Wednesday at noon on the Boston Common to dump proprietary software into a huge garbage can, or something like that -- a sort of Boston Software Party, if you will.
But we won't, and your editor didn't. Most of the arguments on the FSF's new Web site are nothing new. The Cambridge, Mass. (where else?)-based organization wants us to know that Microsoft is a monopolist, that it forces users to upgrade, that it doesn't always respect industry standards, that its software isn't as secure as it could be, etc., etc., etc. We've heard it all before.
And, to be honest, most of those criticisms are fair, at least on the surface. The forced-upgrade thing is not necessarily bad for partners, but Microsoft really could work on much of the other stuff, particularly respecting standards and tightening security -- although Redmond has made strides in both areas recently.
What gets us, though, is the whole premise of the FSF's argument, which is basically that proprietary software, no matter who makes it, is bad. Dig the first paragraph of the Windows 7 Sins text on the site:
"The new version of Microsoft's Windows operating system, Windows 7, has the same problem that Vista, XP, and all previous versions have had -- it's proprietary software."
Um, yeah. Windows 7 is software based on intellectual property developed by Microsoft (well, mostly...but let's not get into that right now), and by protecting its intellectual property, Microsoft maintains the value of its product. It's a concept that works pretty well in pretty much any industry in a capitalist society. Of course, the folks at the FSF have never come off as being too much in favor of capitalism.
Hey, we at RCPU see a lot of value in the open source movement and in open source software. We've come around on that issue to a great extent in the last year or so; we can even see open source being a threat to Microsoft in some markets, and it should be. But as any partner who has created a unique consulting methodology or developed its own software will happily admit, "proprietary" products are what grease the wheels of industry. Without any proprietary applications, software and the services that go with it would have little value -- and we don't even want to think about the consequences of that scenario.
Even open source companies like Red Hat that rail against software patents still hold them -- however reluctantly. They might think that patents impede innovation (and maybe they do, sometimes), but they understand the value of protecting their ideas and products. Google likes to position itself as open source-friendly, but just try to get some search algorithms from the Internet titan and see how far you get.
The basic message here is that ideas are worth something -- money, to be specific -- and that ideas put into action are worth even more. The FSF, as far as we can tell, envisions a world (or, at least, a software industry) in which everybody shares everything and (presumably) nobody pays for anything, a lovely thought that has no practical application whatsoever. We hope that the FSF doesn't represent the open source community as a whole. And we don't think it does, given that companies like Red Hat do seem to enjoy being profitable.
Microsoft has committed a lot of sins throughout its history, but simply being a proprietary software company isn't one of them. Maybe, as it develops, the open source movement can start competing with Microsoft not just on cost but on functionality and availability of service (especially in the enterprise), as it already does in some markets. Until then, partners will keep selling Microsoft software and customers will keep buying it because, despite their faults, Microsoft's apps are still worth paying for.
What are your thoughts on open source? Is proprietary software evil? Why or why not? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on August 27, 20094 comments
So, who saw this coming? Bankrupt and defeated vendor SCO, which lost a lawsuit it filed against IBM in 2007 and at the same time lost claim to ownership of the UNIX copyright (which went to Novell), has won a stunning reversal in a federal Appeals Court. Now, not only can SCO get back to suing IBM (if it can raise the money), but Novell seems to have lost its unique copyright on UNIX. Goodness. Do stay tuned on this one.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 27, 20095 comments