[lug] Article Link - a twist I had not considered...

[John Karns]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Harris, James said:

> I'm terribly concerned with this quote:
>
> "At Microsoft Corp., doubts go beyond IBM to Linux itself. Doug Miller,
> director of competitive strategy for the software giant, says he thinks
> Linux isn't a long-term bet for the data center. "I just don't see it taking
> over the world," he says. "
>
> WHY does an OS _need_ to take over the world?  What's wrong with diversity?

There's nothing wrong with diversity.  It's monopolies that I don't like.
:->  Corrolary: there's no such thing as a benevolent monopoly.


> Use what does the job best.  We run our multi-hundred-thousand email per day
> SMTP gateways on Linux, because NT just can't handle it (we found this out
> the hard way.)  But we still choose to run Exchange on the front-end, simply
> because it truly kicks ass.  What is so wrong with this?  Why do we have to
> be all or nothing?

If HP hadn't deep-sixed Open-Mail, their Exchange server for Linux drop-in
replacement, then you wouldn't have to run NT, either!  :)  It would be
interesting to know the story behind some of these companies actions.
Another instance is the AOL switch from basing their client on Netscape
(which they own) to IE.  Can anyone on this list imagine MS doing
something similar i.e., basing an MSN client on Netscape?

I recall recently having read a story on one of the Linux news Internet
sites about a high level manager in a company having done something
similar (killed a Linux product which was in competition with one of
MSW's), and later left the company to join MS.

----------------------------------------------------------------
John Karns                                        jkarns at csd.net