[seul-edu] M$ Audits (long) [was Re: MS targeting...]

["Stephen C. Daukas" <stephen@daukas.com>]

I have been reading about this issue from multiple sources, and biases,
and wanted to add my two-bits worth...

Not to defend M$, but I do understand what they are doing - they want $
for people using their software.  (The audit activity, by the way,
may be another indication that they are getting nervous about "pay
as you go software", with .net being the most obvious reaction to
this possible "new world" in technology.)  Given the
number of people who illegally install M$ product on Intel platforms, M$
figures they will structure an agreement that is less costly on a
per-platform basis then trying to account for the actual number of copies
in use.  (No doubt, this is a win-win in M$ mind.)   I
believe that M$ believes that this audit effort will eventually provide a
segue to "pay as you go" with M$ instead of the
competition.

When I consulted for the US Army, for example, the Commands I was working
with realized that they had routinely discarded the shrink-wrapped
license agreements that came with the PCs and/or upgrades and had no way
of proving they actually paid for the software.  (And we are talking
about tens of thousands of boxes.)  In fact, they probably didn't
pay for all the copies in use because individuals assumed they could
install anything available to them on their own PC.  (Sometimes even
on their home PC!)  Not too different from corporate America, nor
the education sector, as far as I can tell.  They eventually opted
for a blanket agreement.  Once an agreement like that is in place,
it is far easier to stick with the vendor than to look for
another.

( Not to be moralistic, but it seems to me that people have brought this
upon themselves something I have observed time and time again over the
past 20 years...  )

Having said that, the twist is this: if people were honest about
software, the true cost of M$ would have become apparent years ago, and
there might be a somewhat different landscape in High-Tech today. 
Even noting that M$ has driven down the costs of certain technologies,
most notably database software (anyone who is familiar with Oracle's
pricing over the past few years can understand what I'm referring to
here), the real cost of M$ is much higher than most people understand and
a good portion of this cost has been evaded by illicit 
installs.

There is a real lack of sophistication and critical thinking skills in
the US when it comes to pondering what issues might arise more than a few
months down the road, especially when it comes to technology! 
Imagine what the reaction to the "IT" budget would have been if
the budget actually reflected the cost of ownership!!  Surely people
would have looked for alternatives!  (By the way, the same holds
true for Apple and their taking advantage of the same skill deficit by
getting schools to sign agreements that precluded them from buying
intel/M$ platforms, resulting in poor hardware being foisted on schools
and then being made to suffer with Macintosh versions of M$
software.)  Now imagine a school district being faced with
staggering costs and signing-up to a deal that saves them $ in the short
run and brings who-knows-what two years down the road.  Not too hard
to imagine!

My personal hope is that this latest development will force school
administrations to actually think about what technology is good for and
what it costs, will give strength and support to the GNU/Linux community,
entice vendors on the application end of the spectrum to port their
packages, and that Apple will get off their butts, hire some decent
marketing talent, and provide some real competition to M$ by abandoning
hardware and becoming the premier Linux vendor (after all, their latest
incarnation is just the Mac GUI on top of UNIX/Linux, distributed on
hardware that is no better than any out there, just more
expensive).  Of course, if M$ has their way, you would have to pay a
fee even for an Apple box.

OK, enough of the soapbox...

The issue now is one of "what practical alternative is there to
Microsoft?"  The answer may well be "nothing
yet."  It could even be, wait to see what "pay as you
go" brings to the table.

When this thread first started, I began wondering what is available as a
real alternative to M$ for the great unwashed masses.  Of course,
the answer I would expect to hear is "Linux!", but...

I'm talking about a solution that is useable by those who are not rabid
members of a LUG, or Sys Admins in their day job, or past High-tech
professionals that have become educators. I'm talking about productivity
software that will read and write M$ file formats (Excel, Word, etc.)
without a user even realizing it.  (I don't know, for example, if
Star Office is a real alternative because I don't know how well it
interoperates with those who use Word, for example, on a daily
basis.)  Perhaps there is a solution that will reliably run M$
applications without having to buy the OS, but that is only a step in the
right direction and essentially what Apple offers - at a premium - and
still doesn't solve the real issue.

It seems to me, from what I have seen thus far in education, that the
majority of use is a web browser, email client, and M$
productivity software (Word, Excel, etc.).  The productivity
software is the real crunch, because there are outstanding web browsers
and email packages out there already.  If all you needed was
communication (email, WWW, etc.), you don't need Microsoft!  Of
course, the schools don't have to teach Word, et al., but what would they
teach if not the software that has 90% of the market?  Of course,
this is the real issue, isn't it!  You've got to hand it to M$, they
are unsurpassed when it comes to marketing and leveraging their
position!

Forgetting about that for a minute, then the next real issue regarding
"going Linux" jumps out - support!  Support and Sys Admin
people who know UNIX/Linux.

I have been able to go 90% Linux at home for the past 4 years or
so.  The 10% is for M$ compatibility for my wife who needs to be
able to use M$ productivity software, especially Excel, so she can do
some work at home.  Said another way, the reason my wife can use
Linux is because she has a 20-year veteran of High-tech to help her over
the rough spots, especially the system administration.

Imagine a school system that decides to go Linux and what they would
face!  Even if they were completely self contained (i.e., Star
Office for everyone in the district and the municipality itself), they
couldn't afford the UNIX/Linux talent to keep the whole thing
running.  Forgive me for saying it, but MCSE talent ain't even close
to the level required for UNIX/Linux, and this is reflected by their
respective salaries in the market today (and my past experience in
managing techies and realizing that MCSE certification has been degrading
over the years).

So, that leaves us with two killer issues, or barriers to entry: 
The market dominance of M$ productivity apps and the ability to attract
and retain Linux/UNIX Sys Admin talent.

It seems to me that if there is a way out of M$ dominance today, it will
be a combination of technologies that minimize M$'s footprint in the
organization by providing seamless interoperability with M$ productivity
applications and making Linux/UNIX system admin easier/more
affordable.

Since I'm new to the education sector, and since I'm going to be
inextricably involved with this very issue at my new job this fall, I was
hoping to hear what success folks have had in trying to replace M$, and
if Linux is ready to work in heterogeneous High-Tech world. 

Sorry for the long posting!

Steve