Microsoft and the Linux Threat

<< Previous

Growing Acceptance Among Corporates Contd...

Microsoft's Response

Microsoft has done its best to put down the Linux uprising. In 1999, the company created a website under the heading ‘Linux Myths'that questioned Linux's performance and reliability. In June 2001, in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Ballmer labeled Linux a ‘cancer'because open-source rules impinged on intellectual property rights. In recent times, the software giant has continued to lobby governments to expand their purchases of Microsoft software. But dozens of countries are considering legislation that encourage the use of open-source software such as Linux.

While Linux itself is free, Microsoft has argued that it costs far more to maintain Linux than Windows. To prove the point, Microsoft commissioned a study by IDC that was released in December 2002. The study concluded that Microsoft had created more software tools for managing and updating Windows. So Windows would be 11% to 22% cheaper to run than Linux over a fiveyear period in four out of five different common computing tasks, such as sending files to printers and running security applications. Windows was more expensive only when it came to serving up Web pages. But Microsoft critics feel that the company had turned the survey to its advantage by selecting scenarios that would invariably be more costly using Linux.

Conclusion

Linux threatens Microsoft precisely because it is not like any of the company's previous challenges. "We're used to competing with products and companies," admits James E Allchin⁶, group vice-president of Microsoft's Windows business. “It's different than anything else we've dealt with before." Although the people committed to Linux seem to be developing software with altruistic rather than commercial motives, Linux is gaining rapid ground. Linux seems to be motivating programmers in a way that corporations often don't. "Programmers are like artists," according to a consultant. They like to demonstrate their skills to their peers. In open source, they get this opportunity. But at most corporations, their best work is hidden behind "locked and guarded" doors. The success of Linux also implies that no one company, not even a giant such as Microsoft, has a monopoly on all the best programmers. By harnessing peer reviews, allowing contributions from anyone who can write good programs, open source avoids secrecy. The fundamental appeal of open source: Seems to be people power. Companies employing open-source software like the idea of modifying programs more easily to meet their needs or just fix problems. New companies are cropping up everyday offering Linux-based products and most of them are free. What can Microsoft do to counter Linux?

6] Source: Businessweek, March 3, 2003.