Khaotic Musings
Random musings on Linux and Free and Open Source Software.
Tuesday 17 February 2009, 6:11 AM
Single biggest thing holding Linux back? Vendor lock-in
Among his comments were:
"Conversely, Windows 7 delivers a clear message to every Linux distributor aiming for a piece of the business IT market: Aim high, execute flawlessly, and deliver amazing service -- or save yourselves the trouble and don't even bother trying."
In general, I like Matthew's pieces, but I think he misses the mark with this perspective, and here's why. Microsoft itself needs do none of these things in order to sell hundreds of millions of Vista licnces. It needs deliver neither a flawlessly executed product, nor particularly good, let alone amazing(!), service.
In trying to get more businesses to adopt Linux and open source software over the past 18 years or so, I've discovered that no matter how good Linux becomes, one hurdle stubbornly remains - in fact, it's the biggest hurdle that Linux and free/open source will ever face: vendor lock-in.
Here's what makes vendor lock-in such a difficult customer for any market-newcomer like desktop Linux and free/open source software:
It doesn't matter if Linux has become better than Windows if most users are too afraid to move to an alternative desktop.
It doesn't matter that Linux uses an open platform API, if most line-of-business apps are written to the obfuscated and proprietary Windows API, and Microsoft does its absolute best to ensure that few of these apps 'fly the coup' to Linux's open platform.
It doesn't matter that OpenOffice.org is free and uses a truly open document standard, if most users are tied to Microsoft's office suite because a proprietary binary file format is almost impossible to inter-operate with and thus completely convert documents over to OpenOffice.org.
It doesn't matter if Mozilla Firefox is truly standards-based if so many 'core-business' sites, banking, e-government etc, mandate the use of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6, with its corresponding support for broken HTML.
Yes, in the long run, even vendor lock-in roadblock will be removed. However, in the meantime, industry observers must bear in mind that much of the retardation of market penetration that Linux and free/open source software see isn't inherent to that software, but something largely out of its control.
PreviousComments on this post
Absolutely right, well said.
Plus the fact that Microsoft will do anything to maintain a choke hold on a business to prevent them from switching to a more stable, secure system.
yep, as long as MS "supports" manufactures (guess how) GNU/Linux as an OS won't have a chance - neither in private use nor in companies.
But the crisis might show a slight curve upwards in favour of GNU/Linux as state institutes are switching slowly but surely to GNU/Linux. Cost is a problem (Russia, Cuba..).
GNU/Linux is a problem for a manufacturer. There's no actual support, there's no support in terms of cash. Only Ubuntu with Canonical behind can have a chance. Or do you think RedHat is free? They pay the manufactures/companies to use Linux. Microsoft is doing the same
I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Many desktop users aren't necessarily afraid to switch operating system, but may instead not be aware it's an option. Non-techie workers in companies work with the machines they're given, and if those machines suddenly had Ubuntu on them one day, I think there would be little uproar -- a little retraining might be needed, but people would probably just get on with work after that.
Of course, this assumes that the IT department would be willing to scrap Windows for Linux -- and here laziness, not lock-in may well be Linux's enemy. PCs are still delivered with Windows installed, and it takes work to put an alternative OS in its place. Once it becomes worth a techie's while to do that work -- whether that's through increased security, reliability or lower cost -- then we'll see Linux breaking through on the business desktop, at least.
Hi Jonathan.
You comment:
"Of course, this assumes that the IT department would be willing to scrap Windows for Linux -- and here laziness, not lock-in may well be Linux's enemy. PCs are still delivered with Windows installed, and it takes work to put an alternative OS in its place."
This is certainly possible, but bear in mind that each new version of 'corporate' Windows: 98, 2000, XP, Vista, is different enough, from an organisation's IT group perspective, to actually *be* a new operating system deployment.
That's not enough to cause most IT groups to consider alternatives at each point of migration/upgrade however. Instead, they'll tweak their VB apps so that they run on the new Windows OS; they'll buy the licences for the new versions of Exchange and SQL Server, so that they remain compatible, etc.
Where there *is* laziness, perhaps even a laissez-faire strategic approach, is in these IT departments' planning for the future; few work hard towards eliminating points of vendor lock-in.
While it's hard to switch OS platforms if all your apps are written in VB or to the Windows API, it is possible to do so if all your department's apps are based on web-apps or Java.
With a little planning, pretty much any organisation can positions themselves into a position which is largely free of vendor lock-in. This in turn gives them maximal bargaining leverage when licencing renewal negotiations next appear on the agenda.
I think that in the previous two comments I would substitute the word inertia for laziness.
