[Leaplist] microsoft / novell -- Can I get a STFU?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 17:38 -0500, Jim Hartley wrote:
> It is certainly your right to refuse to use this product (or any other). 
> And lord knows I hate Micro$haft as much as anyone ...

I don't hate Microsoft.

I think Microsoft expenses and abuses their own professionals, including
myself, and I call them out on that regularly.  Not because I like to
argue or generally throw around rhetoric, but in an attempt to get them
to stop posturing and fix serious issues in their products.  And I will
readily recommend alternative solutions, even those for Windows, than
Microsoft products when the risk to client investments are at stake.

There's nothing like a Microsoft Gold Partner getting "pissed" in front
of their client when they think I'm advocating a Linux solution, when I
throw it right back at them what one of the "partners" are doing far
better.  Novell is always a good example (i.e., their Windows software),
Altiris is yet another, etc...

> although I am now a strong Linux advocate, I am STILL p*ssed at them
> for the way they sabotaged OS/2.

IBM shot themselves in the foot there.  Their PC division signed away
all of OS/2 R&D, repeatedly.  Dropping their PC division was the
smartest move they could have ever made.

But don't forget that IBM's #1 money maker is still consulting on
_Windows_ solutions.  IBM surely hasn't forgotten that.  ;->

> Had I been the judge at the anti-trust trial, they would 
> have been broken into about SIX pieces, with a sixth (or more) of the 
> resources given to a "Windows 98" company, and far less to the "Windows 
> NT/2K/XP" company  ... how's that for sabotage, hmmm?

Had I been the judge at the anti-trust trial, I would have fined
Microsoft repeatedly for contempt of court.

But as far as everything else, I would have pushed the blame back on the
people complaining the most -- the PC manufacturers, IBM, Novell, etc...
and told them, "hey you guys, you signed it, you wanted the free lunch
and thought it was free."

I've been on this list 8 years, and all I've heard about is how some
(probably most?) of you guys "I have to run Windows" this and that,
blah, blah, blah ...  You're part of the problem, not the solution.
You're the ones that helped put Microsoft in their position.  I know
many of you will hate me for saying that, but it's true.

I have _always_ questioned Hostageware *NOT* merely commercial software
or what I call Commerceware.  I have _always_ put things in terms of
risk, not revolutions or ideals.  And that has caused me to repeatedly
avoid issues year after year, while others hoped and waited for a way
out of "vendor lock-in."

<attitude on>
We've had people use Linux just because "it's not Microsoft" only to go
back.  We've had lambast after lambast of good, pro-standards companies
like Adobe, Caldera (before the SCO buy-out), Corel, Novell, Red Hat
(the alleged "Microsoft of Linux"), Sun, etc...  And sometimes I just
want to say "STFU!" just as much as all well-known Linux consultants,
developers, integrators, etc... want to.

97% of Linux enthusiasts *ARE* the "problem."  Hell, 97% of Linux
consultants can't get their rear out of the "customized web server"
closet.  I've had discussion after discussion on various lists about the
concepts of solid Enterprise Configuration Management (ECM), the
evaluation of commercial software when it _does_ make sense (because
it's open standards, or at least from a company that gives real value
and sticks with support a solid vendor standard), etc...

And each and every time I get flak about how Red Hat sucks, how Adobe is
evil, how there's no reason for Altiris solutions when Linux servers
don't need to be managed, etc...  And I've seen Linux projects *FAIL* as
a result ... *BIG*TIME*!  Yes, people *DO* go crawling back to
Microsoft.  Not because it's "better," but because 97% of Linux
consultants are just so damn *IGNORANT* of solid, enterprise practices.
</attitude>

> BUT ... I think you are starting to sound a little Stallman-ish on this.

I have no problem with Stallman.  I just remember to put his comments in
_context_ of where he's coming from.  That's the key, _context_.

Stallman is _brilliant_.  Stallman *IS* a _good_ spokesperson for the
Free Software or "Freedomware" (as I call it, and I don't care if the
panzy "socialists" like "Libre" better, "Freedom" is not a bad word ;-)
world.  If you actually listen to him, he does admit certain aspects of
business and how Free Software will work.  He's always been very
intelligent in that regard.

Yes, sometimes he takes stances I don't agree with.  But there's nothing
wrong with his viewpoint if you look at the context he's looking at it.
I work in the world of "risk mitigation" -- I have since my aerospace
days.  I have a more recent saying ... "If we didn't launch the STS
(shuttle transport system) until we were sure it was absolutely safe, it
would *NEVER* fly."  At some point, business becomes a matter of
mitigating risks, not some high-fly ideals or certainties.

Stallman is a good "anchor" on one side.  Red Hat is another solid
"anchor" on another.  Commercial software -- *NOT* "Hostageware" (i.e.,
Microsoft) -- companies are yet another.  In the middle are people
trying to develop, integrate and otherwise implement solutions.  Yes,
arguments can be made in "black'n white."  The problem is that not
everyone agrees on those boundaries.

And a good consultant knows that you don't get into the ideals or
black'n white, but into the risks to what a corporation values.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith          Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------
       Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution