Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolves?
Summary
Topics
Elsewhere, some contemplate the (rather silly to me) notion of Microsoftgetting seriously into the Linux OS market,wondering whether Redmond's influence would disrupt the current opensource dynamics. Feedback was understandably incredulous, but hardlyfearful.
It doesn't really take long to understand the lack of fear, once youunderstand why Linux even exists.
Simply put, the movement towards free and open source software and theassociated shift in power is bigger than IBM, HP, Compaq, and Sun all rolled up together. It's a social movement that is slowlybut surely changing the way that people develop software and think abouttheir computers.
If there's any fright at play here it's as much the vendors' fearof open source as anything else. This societal shift is letting users take back control over their futures.You could even think of the The status quo of commercial computing relies heavily on inertia -- onceusers make a strategic decision to go with a specific vendor, they findbreaking away from that vendor difficult and expensive. Going from Windowsto Unix is a pain. Going from AS/400 to Windows is a pain. Heck, evenstaying loyal to the same vendor is not without its risks and migrationheadaches (Windows 9X to NT/2000, and SunOS to Solaris, for instance). To be sure, there are plenty of IT managers who appreciate and even likethe subservience of one-vendor computing. Some, however, are simplyfearful of choice, and others just haven't reached the breaking point.They can easily deflect complaints about mediocrity, while shrugging theirshoulders at suggestions of alternatives and pointing to the outrageous costof switching vendors. But more and more computer users, both private and corporate, arediscovering that open source doesn't just level the playing field -- itlevels the whole stadium. Using open source prevents vendors from lockingcustomers into software that can only be maintained by one source. In theworld of open source, vendors keep customers based on how well they attendto user needs, not by how well they restrict users' ability to switch vendors. At the source of this debate over IT dollars is the fact that the GPLprohibits the distribution of proprietary code enhancements. This is badnews for any vendor whose business model depends upon proprietary, closedsoftware. Some vendors have referred to the GPL as a virus. I've even heard the GPL called"unethical" because its use complicates efforts to develop unique valuethat vendors can turn into a competitive advantage. Well, it's no surprise that Linux is a challenge to those companieswanting to capitalize on it. (A quick glance at the tumbling stock priceof any Linux vendor bears this out.) But it's notimpossible, and the challenge is worth taking when end users are demandingfreedom from vendor dominance. The big advantage of using the GPL is thatcompanies know that nobody -- including themselves -- can take their work,extend it, and seal it away in a proprietary box (like Apple is doing toBSD code in its So what's to be scared of? Should mainstream computer vendors be scared of Linux? Let me know in the TalkBack below.
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
