|
IBM and Microsoft
They couldn't be more different when it comes to Linux and Open Source software. IBM embraces Linux and Open Source Software (OSS) and says "Linux provides a revolutionary open source platform offering superior dependability and open expandability to support software innovation. We're proud to be a part of the Linux movement, and we look forward to working with the larger community to nurture Linux and to see it thrive."
IBM just launched their Linux web site. They enjoy a relationship with the OSS community that allows them to bring higher quality products to market with less development effort and expense. This means higher profits and happier customers. Other companies, such as Novell, are following IBM's example. IBM has announced that they would spend $1 billion this year on OSS-related development. IBM is turning Linux and OSS to their advantage. Their mainframes, for example, can now run hundreds or thousands of Linux virtual machines. This is analogous to your ability to run VMware on your Linux or Windows machine and run other operating systems concurrently. The IBM world is now characterized by support for multiple platforms and choice - a far cry from the bad old IBM of the 1960s and 70s. You don't have to stretch your imagination too far to see IBM taking over Microsoft's business in the next few years.
In stark contrast, Microsoft is telling you that Linux is inferior to Windows, that OSS stifles innovation, and that the government should pass laws to curb their use. You've probably noticed that Microsoft has stepped up it's anti-Linux and anti-OSS rhetoric lately. Microsoft is being hurt badly by OSS. They're losing the battle in the server space and their desktop dominance is in jeopardy. And this was before IBM ramped up their Linux/OSS marketing machine. You may have noticed that when Microsoft is critical of OSS they always refer to Linux. They do not mention their real competition which is Apache and Samba. After all, why would they want to alert customers to the existence of software that works better than their own products? Microsoft's IIS web server seems to be riddled with security holes that they can't seem to fix. A frustrated Steve Ballmer is reported to have said "You would think we could figure out how to fix buffer overflows by now." They can't. The fix for IIS customers is to upgrade to the Apache web server which happens to run on Windows NT and Windows 2000 platforms as well as Unix, Linux, NetWare, etc. Microsoft's customers don't need to abandon Windows to upgrade to more reliable and more secure servers. Apache essentially provides a migration path to Linux. Many businesses are running Samba instead of Windows NT/2000 for file and print server applications. Samba is more reliable and is free. Consultants who install Samba for their clients benefit in many ways. They have happier customers, fewer service calls, and get to keep far more of the money they invoice customers for. Customers spend far less, suffer far less down time, don't have to worry about licensing issues, etc. Even companies that think they're running a 100% pure Microsoft shop often have clandestine Samba servers running. Users and management can't tell the difference other than the increased reliability. Life is easier for the IT staff and the company benefits. Don't ask - don't tell.
Who will your company be buying computer software from in the future? IBM or Microsoft? If you're a business type, you want to purchase from a company that is successful, speaks your language, and that will be around to support the products in the future. Product quality and cost is secondary. The past few years have shown vividly how quickly well established companies can fall or fail. AT&T, Lucent, Sunbeam, etc. There's nothing to prevent Microsoft (or IBM) from suffering the same fate. So, let's compare Microsoft and IBM using financial metrics. How about annual revenue? IBM weighs in at $88.4 billion for the year 2000 to Microsoft's $23 billion. IBM is number 8 on the Fortune 500 list and number 16 on the Global 500 list. Microsoft is number 79 on the Fortune 500 list and number 216 on the Global 500 list. The following table summarizes this and shows you AT&T and Lucent as well.
Of course, these are not the only financial metrics that matter. The point is financial standing is no guarantee of success and long term viability. This leaves you with speaking your language. IBM is every bit as skilled at telling you what you want to hear as Microsoft. Perhaps more so - they've been at it longer. There's another thing to consider. Perhaps product quality and cost are not as unimportant as you believe. In these areas, Linux and OSS are hard to ignore. In time, ignoring them will be a poor career move. |