The Open-Source Open Mic: Reader EmailThe Open-Source Open Mic: Reader Email

Are Windows 2000 Stragglers Pondering A Future Without Microsoft?

In another recent Linux Pipeline newsletter, I pointed out a fact that continues to amaze me: Microsoft says its upcoming Internet Explorer 7 update will not support Windows 2000 systems. The company's position seems to defy logic, since half of all Windows users worldwide are still using W2K, and some are not planning to migrate for two or three years. While I saw this as potentially a major opportunity for Firefox to break into the business market, Steve Hultquist, a principal at Steve Hultquist Associates in Boulder, CO, thinks there may be an even more significant trend at work:

More and more, it seems to me, the IT leadership of larger organizations are seriously considering alternatives to Microsoft's next big promise. Could it be that the continued use of W2k is less due to the limited advantages of XP than to the desire of these leaders to allow alternatives to bloom sufficiently to either migrate in that new direction (Linux? Mac OS X? OpenBSD?)? I, for one, think that it's a combination of these things. In fact, for one of my clients I a developing a migration plan to move most of the desktops to Mac OS X, use application sharing (ala terminal services, Citrix, or the like) for Windows-only apps, and I'm even looking at migrating the core to OS X Server from Windows 2003 as the company is growing. I expect that there is more of this thinking out there under the covers than is generally realized.

Will Apple Leave Linux With A Bad Taste?

And finally, a couple of reader contributions reaching back to the editor's note in the June 7 Linux Pipeline newsletter. At the time, I wrote that Apple's decision to release an x86 build of OS X could cause serious problems for desktop Linux vendors accustomed to marketing their products by hitting Windows constantly with the same stick -- a stick that won't work very well against a competitor built on an open-source, Unix foundation.

First up is David Hanover, who doesn't see Apple posting a threat to the bargain-computing mainstream anytime soon:

Great analysis of the o/s dynamics involved in the O/S X caper, but it seemed to overlook one thing Linux has in it's corner; if you want to run O/S X, you have to own or buy a Mac! What if you typically find yourself using a 2-5 year old box? (Maybe the real answer to that question is "nobody cares about you!") At any rate, I don't think the Mac O/S is going to bury Linux in the near future. In fact, the more ubiquitous O/S X becomes, the better press it will be for Linux!

(By the way, I think David nails an important point right here: If the Linux community plays its cards right (e.g. no GPL jihadists running amok), OS X could represent a net marketing advantage, especially given Apple's determination not to try its luck in the commodity hardware market anytime soon.

And last but not least, Mark Allen raises some interesting questions about just how deep Microsoft's "ownership" of the desktop market really goes:

I enjoy your newsletter, but one issue which always seems overlooked in "OS X vs. Windows vs. Linux desktop" is the applications that run on top of each OS. My point is a huge percentage of the (non-transactional -- that is, not bank tellers, call center employees, etc.) business world runs on swapping Microsoft Office documents and emails/meeting notices through Exchange, and those choices extend the dominance of Microsoft beyond the OS layer. If there's no OS X port of Office and Outlook that EXACTLY matches the Windows version's input/output/network communication formats, then Windows will always win the battle for the (business) desktop. So, even if somehow Microsoft loses the desktop OS battle, they've got the backup monopoly on "office productivity" software. I really don't see how -- in the absense of free as in speech and beer IO libraries provided and actively maintained by Microsoft -- you can overcome the office software issue.

Of course, Microsoft itself has clouded the picture, promising a relatively open and easily duplicated, XML-based document format starting with its forthcoming Office update. It's entirely possible that Redmond, in a fit of self-confidence it will regret later, gave away more than any self-respecting monopolist would want to surrender. Or it's entirely possible there's more to this "open" format than meets the eye.

Mysteries abound. While we're trying to solve a few of them, keep that mail coming in, and I'll try to get more of it published here.

Matt McKenzie is editor of Linux Pipeline. His birthday is this Friday -- but he's planning to work anyway.