What if the open-source advocates are right, and the rest of the world is heading their way? Early evidence suggests that may be the case. Even Apple Computer (AAPL), creator of the industry's most aggressively proprietary platform, has released the source code to its new streaming-media server.
This wave is heading northwest. It's not hard to see how the combination of an expected loss in Round One of the antitrust case and demands from programmers and large corporate customers could lead Microsoft (MSFT) to try the open-source method on some of its products, particularly its flagship Windows operating system. This will lead to the level playing field Microsoft's competitors say is necessary. Once Microsoft is forced to play by the same rules, the reasoning goes, then we can bring down the Redmond giant.
Slow down, Linux Lilliputians. A move to open source may make Microsoft an even tougher competitor. The open-source model is attractive in many ways, but with few exceptions - Apache is the obvious one - it's hard to argue that open-source products are any friendlier to consumers than their commercial competition. Microsoft Word is frustrating and slow, but no writer would prefer to rely on Emacs, the Linux text editor. When your audience is real people, not fellow programmers you're trying to impress, you pay more attention to usability.
Does anyone think that Microsoft will be any less brutal than usual when it enters this new market? Over time, the company has proven itself to be remarkably resilient. Microsoft has a rich history of moving quickly when necessary. The ink wasn't dry on the pages of Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead, which barely mentioned the Internet, when Gates realized his shortsightedness and developed an all-encompassing Internet strategy that led to the demise of Netscape. As Linux vendors continue to simplify installation and the operating system continues its development into a legitimate alternative to Windows, Microsoft will do what it always does to compete: match features with the market leader. And the single most important feature of Linux is its freely available source code.
It's likely that some small percentage of the millions of lines of Windows source code will be labeled "sensitive" by Microsoft's lawyers. However, enough of the code will be available and modifiable so that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of programmers will be able to improve and customize it.
So don't save all your money for the rumored RedHat IPO that's supposedly coming later this year. Freely available source code will go a long way toward satisfying Microsoft's legal and regulatory adversaries. And the contributions from a broader group of programmers will make Windows stronger, as security holes are identified and plugged and optimized code makes programs run faster and more logically.
No longer will we have to wait for Microsoft to deliver new bug fixes, drivers and patches on its chosen schedule. Without the Department of Justice plaguing it or programmers complaining that they don't have access to the information they need, Microsoft can strengthen Windows in the marketplace and slow or reverse the defection to Linux. Releasing the new NT version before George Lucas completes his new trilogy in 2005 wouldn't hurt, either.
The only major foreseeable problem for Microsoft under this scenario is that it might fall into the same morass that Linux seems to be slipping into: a lack of standards, which leads to a lack of confidence. Just as the pre-Windows PC world had to deal with idiosyncratic OS flavors like Compaq (CPQ) MS-DOS and Tandy (TAC) MS-DOS that offered different commands and functions, the Linux world is fragmenting. Caldera (CALD)'s Linux distribution is not identical to RedHat's.
The plethora of graphical interfaces being loaded atop Linux (the most popular being Gnome and KDE) is leading to a world in which you're never quite sure that any two Linux systems will be able to do the same
