Business, Linux, Ethics and Standards - [Was]RE: [Sussex] Yet Ano ther Windows Bug

[Geoff Teale]

Mark wrote:
-----------
> Geoff,
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you. Nor am I saying that we 
> shouldn't be making
> Windows users aware of problems. I think we all know that 
> this bug, now
> discovered, will be fixed in the next Service Pack, possibly before...
 
Yup.  Note that what I wrote was not an anti-Microsoft rant (I bundled
Netscape in there to).  Standards are boring, but things like the internet
and indeed LINUX cannot exist without them.  I know people on this list who
have expressed concern about standardisation amongst Gnome and KDE, but
these things are important - the success of LINUX depends on it.  The thing
about standards is this - you use them when you need a known quantity - in
comms they are essential, in desktop environments they are not, but in a
commercial environment there is real value in being able to say that "this
application will run on any LSB compliant machine with a desktop environment
compliant to FreeDesktop 1.0".  If you don't want to use a FreeDesktop
compliant desktop you don't have to, but it makes sense in the mainstream.
The thing about Linux is it _can_ be whatever you want.  

Businesses want it to be Unix on the server and Windows on the desktop - to
achieve those things we need standards.  Standards _promote_ choice but
restrict functionality in some ways, FreeDesktop are not trying to
homogenise the LINUX desktop, they are promoting a standard that allows you
choose any WM you like without having to work out for yourself whether
things will work correctly or how you get your menu items setup.    

Home users want it to be some kick-arse, customisable dream machine OS (or
possibly just a great hacking platform) to achieve this things we need
freedom.   We already have the freedom, it isn't going anywhere, don't worry
about the standards, they work out fine in the end!  When Linus started
building the kernel in earnest he was working towards an informal idea of
POSIX because he wanted a UNIX OS that was actually useful.

> However, one of the biggest problems that OpenSource is up 
> against NOW is a
> feeling among senior IT managers that the Linux community is 
> peopled by
> "religious zealots", who are only prepared to have 
> conversations framed around
> the morality of OpenSource and how Microsoft is behaving badly.

True enough.  If you're in the business of selling to people you don't start
by insulting there intelligence or approaching them on a level that they
don't operate.  Business people are rarely interested in ethics (there are
noteable exceptions), but it's wrong to think they don't care, it's just
that they have a legally binding commitment to deliver value to
shareholders.  From a business point of view though, one point that they
should be made aware of and they often seem oblivious to is that by
supporting a monopoly, no matter how good its products are (or seem), they
are painting themselves into a corner, just as business did with IBM in the
old days.  Businesses are very bad at looking beyond the short-term to see
the longterm impact of their action.  Moving to Linux may be expensive
upfront compared to continuing with a new Windows platform, but the long
term cost of that decision could be massive, by allowing a monopolist into
their businesses companies started off with a little medicinal leech and
have ended up with a huge, bloated monster with an appetite that seriously
impacts their IT budget ever 5 years or so.  It's noteable that businesses
hold back from moving to new versions of Windows - but ultimately the power
of the monopoly they helped create forces them down that route.  All ethical
concerns aside, monopolies are bad for businesses and bad for economies.

> Whether Microsoft behaves badly or well in a moral sense is 
> of virtually no
> interest to my clients. What they are interested in is 
> whether it produces good
> products at an acceptable cost compared to the alternatives.

See above.  One important aspect of the entire Open Source movement is that
it is forcing Microsoft to change their business practices and approaches -
see the way they are selling Windows 2003 Server, they're trying to emulate
LINUX.  They've a long way to go, but this is the value of competition in an
open market.  Where one competitor is offering a fairer (or better) deal the
others have to come in line.

RMS would claim that the ultimate goal would be to create a world where all
software is Free (as in speech).  I'm happy to live in a world where I have
the choice to use Free software.

> Anyone who at this point is responding "But they SHOULD care" 
> is, well,
> demonstrating the mismatch of attitudes. 

True enough.  I have mentioned on this list several times that those of us
who have political motives in mind should realise that often you can achieve
your aims wihout ever convincing businesses that you are right and they
should care. Dar Williams called this "playing the greed".  If you can make
a business case that shows benefit in adopting ethical practices in business
then you're going to get further than if you protest outside the businesses
gates.

>Senior IT Managers 
> are paid to care
> about the value they deliver to their organisations 
> stakeholders. If the
> Directors of, say, B&Q, want to get on a moral crusade, then 
> I'd far rather than
> concentrate on abolishing child labour in their Far Eastern 
> suppliers than in
> ditching Microsoft. (Which is, to be fair, exactly the focus 
> they have.)

Of course Mark you realise that one has a direct impact on the other.
Organisations that deal with the developing world (or indeed any economy
less "strong" than the US economy) who use proprietary software and thus
place pressue on their foreign partners to use it so that they can interact
electronically are causing those people difficulty.  Businesses in less
wealthy parts of the world pay relatively large sums for proprietary
software.   How many businesses here balk at roughly £100 per desktop for
Windows and upto £500 per time for office?  Probably not that many.  Now
imagine you're doing business with a company in Surinam.  You often send
them important information in an Excel XP format with lots of code and
formulae in it.    OK, now you are putting pressure on that business to buy
at least one computer with Office XP on it.  The relative cost (in real
terms) of Office XP in surinam (source MIT Technology Review, February 2003)
is £22,500.  OK, so how many businesses balk at that one? _Lots_.  

OK, so what is the impact of that?  Well, it leaves the company with three
choices:

1. Buy the software.
2. Use the software illegally.
3. Tell the company they are working with they can't use the file.

In situation one the company take a large hit on their profit.  It will
certainly have an impact on the liklihood of salary increases, the level of
employment and the ability of the company to act ethically.  Why do sweat
shops in south easy Asia employ child labour?  Is it because GAP and Nike
want them to?  No, it isn't, it's because GAP and Nike demand that they meet
a price point that they can't meet without using child labour.  One thing
however, those companies demand in their contracts that their suppliers use
the same IT systems as their US offices.  Siun Kuah, the manufacturer of
"Gap Jeans" factor into their contract with GAP a relative price equivalent
to US$5,000,000 for their software licenses, to meet their price point their
entire overhead msut be less than a relative US$5,175,000 (Source MIT
Technology Review, Feb 2003).  How much of the remaining US$175,000 do you
figure goes on wages?

In the second situation you rely on you luck.  It's OK as long as you don't
get caught. If you do get caught, well lets hope you're in a country that
doesn't care, because there a 23 countries in the world where the ultimate
punishment for software "theft" is death, and I can tell you now that in
none of those countries has an economy that makes buying Windows or Office
an affordable business expense.

In the third situation you risk loosing vital (and lucrative) business with
a foreign company.  For most companies this is not a decision to be taken
lightly.  You may be thinking, "hey, who the hell is going to walk away from
a deal just because the company don't use office?" but you'd be wrong.  If
you're getting tenders in for what to you is a small contract and one of the
vendors is being a pain in the arse and asking for things in different
formats than you've sent them in, given that all other factors are roughly
equal you're going to go with a vendor who just deals with what you send
them.  Your small deal could be worth a relative fortune to a third world
vendor, loosing that business could be devistating to them.

-- 
GJT
Free Software, Free Society. 
http://www.fsf.org   http://www.gnu.org


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company