«

A while ago the bombshell hit that Microsoft was one of the two licensees
of a new SCO licensing arrangement. Until now the second company was not
disclosed. It turns our that company was Sun Microsystems:
<http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html>

The deal appears to go further than the Microsoft one since "SCO also
granted Sun a warrant to buy as many as 210,000 shares of SCO stock at
$1.83 per share as part of the licensing deal, according to a regulatory
document filed Tuesday."

Sun's involvement as a licensee was evident on the day SCO launched their
legal proceedings against IBM: `Sun hasn't been ashamed to try to profit
from the effects of that suit. It jumped at the chance to declare itself a
safe haven for spooked technology buyers: "Sun's complete line of Solaris
and Linux products...are covered by Sun's portfolio of Unix licensing
agreements. Solaris and Sun Linux represent safe choices for those
companies that develop and deploy services based on Unix systems," Sun
declared the day SCO filed suit against IBM.'

The implication is that only a "licensed" Linux such as "Sun Linux" is a
legally safe choice. The whole process is a machiavellian attempt to
appropriate and privatise a public good that threatens sales of
proprietary Unix operating systems. It probably doesn't even matter to Sun
if Linux becomes illegal to distribute.* People will just have to buy
Solaris instead.

Sun and Microsoft versus IBM, illustrating that the enemy of my enemy is
my friend.

Regards,
Adam

*Section 7 of the GPL states in part:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For
example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
Program.

Adam Warner allegedly said:

> The implication is that only a "licensed" Linux such as "Sun Linux" is a
> legally safe choice. The whole process is a machiavellian attempt to
> appropriate and privatise a public good that threatens sales of
> proprietary Unix operating systems. It probably doesn't even matter to Sun
> if Linux becomes illegal to distribute.* People will just have to buy
> Solaris instead.
>
> Sun and Microsoft versus IBM, illustrating that the enemy of my enemy is
> my friend.
>
> Regards,
> Adam

Got it. Sun. Microsoft.

Makes sense. They both have a common interest in putting speed-bumps under
linux becasue their business models are both under threat.

--
Steve

Hi Steve,

> Got it. Sun. Microsoft.
>
> Makes sense. They both have a common interest in putting speed-bumps
> under linux because their business models are both under threat.

And as a quirk of fate this doesn't apply to IBM since IBM has already
decided to standardise upon Linux, to the extent of even raising the idea
of phasing out emphasis upon AIX:
"IBM: Linux is the 'logical successor'"
<http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512.html>

While IBM doesn't expect Linux to replace its own AIX version of Unix
any time soon, Big Blue is pushing the open-source OS in the that
direction, Steve Mills, senior vice president of IBM's Software Group,
told CNET News.com at last week's LinuxWorld trade show.

Asked whether IBM's eventual goal is to replace AIX with Linux, Mills
responded, "It's fairly obvious we're fine with that idea...It's the
logical successor."

...

The IBM executive in charge of AIX--a product overseen by IBM's server
group, not the software group Mills heads--exemplifies that more
circumspect outlook, and argues that AIX still has a promising future.

"Steve's view is really on a multidecade time frame," said Nick Bowen,
vice president of Unix and Intel server software development at IBM.
"Over time, Linux and Intel and Windows will catch up to where we were
yesterday (with AIX). When they catch up, we'll be two steps down the
road."

...

"IBM has never decommissioned an operating system, and they're not
about to start now," said Governor.

Rather, the debate is over how IBM can best spend its money.

"As IBM puts more resources into Linux...you do have to ask, what
incremental value does AIX bring? And is it worth the incremental
development costs?" Haff said.

One day even Microsoft will have to address a similar question. What's
certain is that incremental development costs will be too high without
hardware manufacturers continuing to freely supply Windows device drivers.
While this isn't yet likely with desktop hardware the reluctance to commit
resources to writing Windows device drivers for server hardware will be
increasing as Microsoft loses server markets to Linux.

Microsoft's pricing strategies are being affected by Linux and Free/Open
Source software: <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121576,00.asp>

Microsoft Corp. is starting to react more aggressively to the Linux and
open-source threat, last week slashing the price of its SQL Server 2000
Developer Edition by $450, to $49.

The second major price cut in as many weeks followed the Redmond,
Wash., company's decision to reduce the retail price of Office XP by 15
percent.

For the first time, Microsoft officials are admitting that Linux is
affecting the way the company prices products. Paul Flessner, senior
vice president of the Server Platform Division, told eWEEK at the Tech
Ed conference here last week that Linux factored into Microsoft's
decision to cut the price of its SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition,
effective Aug. 1.

"Microsoft is about making technology available to all audiences and as
ubiquitously as it can," Flessner said. "Giving developers great access
to our technology helps further that mission, so that was the call
around the developer edition." (For more from Flessner, see Face to
Face, Page 26.)

It is the open source database like PostgreSQL and MySQL that are becoming
ubiquitous.

Regards,
Adam

this quote is from Adam Warner of Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:15 :
>
> Microsoft's pricing strategies are being affected by Linux and Free/Open
> Source software: <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121576,00.asp>
>
> Microsoft Corp. is starting to react more aggressively to the Linux and
> open-source threat, last week slashing the price of its SQL Server 2000
> Developer Edition by $450, to $49.

It will be difficult to keep up their megaBillion $ cash flow stream if they
cut prices like that. They must have ideas for some new revenue streams.

It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price. Unless
maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux now,
then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
monopoly control is restored.


Peter

"Lennier" <> wrote in message
newsan.2003.07.11.22.28.04.394784@TRACKER...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:45:52 +1200, Peter wrote:
>
> > It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price.
Unless
> > maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux
now,
> > then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
> > monopoly control is restored.
>
> Most likely this is the case.
>
> After all, Micro$oft is fighting for it's life here.
>
> Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially cheaper,
> community-based, Open Source alternatives?

Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
better to an IT decision maker in a business.

Nathan Mercer allegedly said:

> Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
> better to an IT decision maker in a business.

"Better" certainly is in the eye of the beholder, so:

"Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially
cheaper,community-based, Open Source alternatives?"

.....still stands. Assume you ARE an IT decision maker and this IS the
thought that just corssed your mind.

You sound as though you don't think it is possible....but it clearly is.

--
Steve

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:44:30 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
<nathan@**(*(*IHATESPAM*(**(K!!!mcs.co.nz> wrote:

>You'd be being irresponsible by not looking at all the options.

True

>From what
>I've experienced, most business people who look at this issue of "Windows vs
>Linux" objectively, choose Windows.
>
Which would go to show that most business people don't know **** from
clay, when it comes to technology, which is my experience.

Generally, the decision (if left to the business) comes down to "I can
find MSFT on the Stock Exchange, but I can't find LINX. Better buy the
one I can find".

Organisations who actually get their technologists to do the research
and present them with options aren't going this way. Munich did it's
research.

>better doesn't mean a thing
>substantially cheaper may well be true based on upfront cost, but not
>neccessarily over the longer term

You and Bill have yet to prove definitively that Windows has a cheaper
TCO than Linux/OSS.

>and some people would argue that being community based is a downside
>
Oooh, that would be why Microsoft has been building a
developer/support community via its MVP and newsgroup activities, yes?

Cheers

mark
--
"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Steve wrote:
> Got it. Sun. Microsoft.

shirly: "Sun of Microsoft"

Nathan wrote:
> "Steve" <> wrote in message
> news8MPa.4451$...
>
>>Nathan Mercer allegedly said:
>>
>>
>>>Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
>>>better to an IT decision maker in a business.
>>
>>"Better" certainly is in the eye of the beholder, so:
>>
>>"Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially
>>cheaper,community-based, Open Source alternatives?"
>>
>>....still stands. Assume you ARE an IT decision maker and this IS the
>>thought that just corssed your mind.
>
>
> You'd be being irresponsible by not looking at all the options. From what
> I've experienced, most business people who look at this issue of "Windows vs
> Linux" objectively, choose Windows.


I think they do this for 3 reasons:

1) Senior management look on all IT costs as subtractions from the
bottom line. What they want is a specific number to which they can
slot into their "excel" spread sheet. The MS solution gives them
that (as they can calculate from last 3 years expenditure).
Volatility/Uncertainty is not what they are looking for in a basic
cost to business.

2) In most organisations the PC department grew organically from
one or two machines back in the 80s. There is now a large vestige
interest in most organisations from the school leaver who installs
the OS to the senior manager/director of the PC-IT division who
do not want to change to anything else. They can play FUD and inertia
to the Board to make sure that "we keep what we know".

3) Without suggesting corruption - because in my experience the
purchasing department can be influenced with such petty bribes that it
is not worth the name. Let us suppose I am a clerk in the purchasing
department. Who is going to take me out to lunch one a quarter at the
local Italian restaurant or remember to send me a Christmas card if I
recommend to my boss that the organisation goes for free software?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:45:52 +1200, Peter wrote:

> It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price. Unless
> maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux now,
> then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
> monopoly control is restored.

Most likely this is the case.

After all, Micro$oft is fighting for it's life here.

Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially cheaper,
community-based, Open Source alternatives?


Lennier

--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.