Posted on 3-6-2003

Linux v Goliath
by Chris Barton, NZ Herald, 3.06.2003

Ed. Note: PlaNet has since 1993 never used a Microsoft product in any of
its systems nor will it in the future unless Microsoft goes open source...
and pigs fly. PlaNet has uses Linux extensively starting with ver 1. Where
MS Windows can crash or freeze daily, Linux OS has operated on a commercial
server on PlaNet on numerous occasions for over 12 months without interruption.


CB:

It's been a torrid few weeks for the open-source movement, but good news
came last week when the local government in Munich said it would spend
about 30 million euros ($61 million) switching 14,000 computers from
Microsoft's Windows and Office productivity software to the open-source
Linux operating system and OpenOffice.

The news was a huge blow to Microsoft, which is so worried about the Linux
threat to its dominance that it has set up a special Linux fighting fund to
provide super-discounts to win contracts from schools and Governments.

The good news follows a bombshell legal claim that Linux was illegally
infiltrated with Unix code.

The drama began in March, when the SCO Group sued IBM for US$1 billion
($1.75 billion). It accused IBM, which has thrown its considerable weight
behind Linux, of code cheating - adding bits of SCO's Unix, previously used
by IBM, to Linux.

SCO then sent letters to 1500 companies warning that other Linux
distributors might also be violating their intellectual property rights.

IBM denied the charge, and the outraged purist Linux community vehemently
rejected Unix contamination. There were a few more twists.

Microsoft got in on the act by buying SCO Unix licences. Then Novell, which
had sold its Unix business to SCO in 1995, said it sold only licences, not
the copyrights or patents, so SCO's claims were baseless.

Best quote of the week went to Linux creator Linus Torvalds: "Quite
frankly, I found it mostly interesting in a Jerry Springer kind of way.
White trash battling it out in public, throwing chairs at each other. SCO
crying about IBM's other women ... "

The fracas shows just how serious an option open-source software has
become. When lawyers get involved with billion-dollar lawsuits, you know
something big is at stake.

To understand what that is, it's necessary to grasp the hugely disruptive
nature of open-source software. It begins with the premise that software,
by its very nature, is never finished and can always be improved on.

Anyone who has used Windows knows this truth. Microsoft's Service Pack 1,
for example, released less than a year after Windows XP, included more than
300 bug fixes and security patches for the new operating system.

A year later, the fixes are still coming.

To deal with this never-ending fix-fest, open-source takes a revolutionary
view of software source code - the underlying text written in a programming
language, which is then compiled into a sequence of instructions that
machines understand.

Unlike Microsoft, which jealously guards its source code as the secret to
its success, open-source software is open for anyone to look at. Not only
that, it's open for anyone to alter and improve on - as long as they make
their additions open-source as well.

Which is exactly what thousands of mainly volunteer programmers all around
the world do - resulting in thousands of open-source projects running atop
the Linux core, such as the XFree86 graphics technology, the KDE and Gnome
interfaces and the Apache web server.

In open-source, software is a social endeavour, not a product (or a
service) made by a company or an individual. But the real kicker is that,
because it's shared among many over the internet, the software is also
pretty much free - although sometimes you pay a little to get it delivered
on CD-Rom and with manuals.

Which is not say open-source programmers don't get paid.

There's still plenty of money to be had from installing, servicing and
supporting the software - and even for development when an organisation
asks for particular enhancements. But unlike Microsoft's Windows or SCO's
Unix, open-source software itself doesn't have a monetary value.

What does have value is the innovation that comes from a growing army of
programmers beavering away on solving software problems, posting their
results for others to critique, and then beavering some more.

But sharing for a greater good is not just an idealistic vision, it's a
highly efficient and pragmatic way of making good software.

The notion turns concepts of intellectual property and copyright inside
out. Which is why Microsoft, SCO and others whose livelihood depends on
ownership of proprietary source code are so opposed to its spread.
Microsoft has adopted a classic FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spreading
tactic to undermine Linux.

In 1991 it attacked the software's performance and reliability via its
"Linux Myths" website. In 2001 chief executive Steve Ballmer labelled the
software a "cancer" because of the way it invaded intellectual property
rights.

More recently it has lobbied Governments - especially our own - to increase
their use of Microsoft software through bulk-buying discounts, and if
necessary with super-discounts from its Linux fighting fund. It's not hard
to see SCO's lawsuit indirectly supported by Microsoft as another weapon in
the FUD campaign.

But despite the obvious advantages of open-source, New Zealand business,
tertiary education and Government have been sloth-like in catching the wave.

Part of the problem is the "lock-in" to existing proprietary systems and
the cost of unlocking. But it's also a locked-in mindset among chief
information officers, educators and Government officials - most of whom
adopt a risk-averse, conservative approach to IT.

Which is a shame because, as many organisations are finding, open-source
has significant long-term cost and development benefits.

If our Government was really serious about "Growing an Innovative New
Zealand" in the IT sector, support for open-source would figure large.
Sadly, it barely registers