IBM And The Open Source Community Deliver new Enterprise Capabilities To Linux

A revolutionary pursuit: freedom from Microsoft

By Dan Gillmor, Technology Columnist
Mercury News

June 30, 2001

This week, the United States will celebrate Independence Day. Our annual paean to liberty strikes me as a good time to work on independence of another kind -- freedom from Microsoft.

I'm increasingly pessimistic that the cops on the antitrust beat can keep up with this particular monopolist, despite last week's valuable ruling by a federal appeals court that the company has abused its dominance. Could Microsoft be too clever, too rich and too ruthless to be held accountable by the legal system? It's not an idle question anymore.

The company certainly has shown its contempt lately, not just for the legal process but also for competitors and customers. It's bludgeoning loyal customers into unnecessary software upgrades, with serious price penalties for those who refuse. It's attacking competitors, once again, by ``integrating'' features into its operating system. It's restricting users' rights in the name of preventing unauthorized copying of software. And that's just for starters.

When the cops can't or won't stop the bully, who can? Maybe us.

Oh, Microsoft is still popular among average people. But when average people finally understand what they're giving up in their tacit, or even overt, support of this company, they'll decide enough is enough. One thing I've noticed about Microsoft is that it eventually turns friends into enemies, because it's incapable of restraint when it wants to control a market or its customer base.

So, despite the fact that I am quite satisfied with some of the company's software, I'm going to unravel its tentacles from my life.

I can't do it quickly or simply, because Microsoft has too many hooks into me. For example, my company put itself squarely in Microsoft's grip several years ago. The only secure way to read my corporate e-mail is to use Microsoft software.

So even if I can break free of the Microsoft orbit, I will suffer inconveniences. The monopoly lock-in has become so strong that I'll have to give up some software or services that only work properly with Windows. It'll be worth the trouble, I hope.

The next Intel-compatible PC I buy will probably arrive pre-loaded with Windows XP, the upcoming version of the operating system, because Microsoft will soon refuse to sell manufacturers anything else. I'll wipe the hard drive and install Windows 2000, which is the first reliable Microsoft operating system I've ever used.

I'll do that even if Windows XP is as good as some reviewers are claiming. I'll do that because it's part of a product line, including Office XP, that values Microsoft's bottom line -- its desire to stop unauthorized copying -- above customers' convenience. In some cases, users won't be able to reinstall the software without Microsoft's permission. As the Register, a British online publication (http://www.theregister.co.uk/) puts it, XP is a demonstration of Microsoft's ``control-freakery.''

Oh, Microsoft did bow to what it plainly considered an ill-bred mob last week on one particularly control-freakish XP feature. It temporarily pulled from the operating system and browser the ill-considered Smart Tags. The embedded code effectively allowed Microsoft to edit other people's Web pages without their permission. The outcry was loud enough that the company said it would not put Smart Tags in the operating system until it had found a way to strike an appropriate balance. I'm confident that the eventual balance will tilt toward Microsoft and its needs, not ours.

I'm also installing a new version of Linux on my PC, to see if I can finally get that operating system running sufficiently well to use Windows less often. Unfortunately, there's that e-mail problem again.

A couple of weeks ago, I took Silicon Valley software developer Dave Winer's advice and used a non-Microsoft Web browser for one day. Microsoft's Windows monopoly, which it extended into the browser market -- the main cause of the big antitrust case -- just about ruined innovation in browsers for several years. I consider Netscape pretty much a lost cause, so I downloaded Opera (http://www.opera.com/), a Norwegian browser. It turns out to be flawed but full of features that are at least intriguing. Opera is a keeper.

I've been a Macintosh user for many years. Recently I've used the Mac only for my living-room music applications. But I just ordered an iBook, Apple's superb notebook computer. I plan to use it for more than music. It may well replace the IBM ThinkPad that has been my on-the-road companion for a long time.

Maybe I'll try the GNU/Linux operating system on the IBM. Linux is the result of a worldwide software movement variously called ``free software'' or ``open source.'' That's the genre in which volunteers create and upgrade programs and let anyone download, examine and modify the programming instructions.

I probably wouldn't switch entirely to free software even if I could. The profit motive has produced some excellent products. I want to continue to support non-Microsoft developers who produce competitive products, even as I support the community of volunteers.

The open-source community needs to focus its considerable attention on a serious new threat. Microsoft's bid to control the Internet is more realistic than most people understand. Web services, the idea that we'll move traditional software and services onto the Net and pay subscription fees, is built to order for the Microsoft empire, and the appeals court ruling appears to give the company running room.

The most dangerous piece of Microsoft's strategy is its user-authentication system, called Passport. You can't have a Hotmail account without a Passport, which collects all kinds of personal information about you, and it won't be long before Microsoft is demanding that everyone who uses Windows also get a Passport account.

Not me, if I can avoid it. But this may be the biggest challenge of all.

The open-source community and others who care about stopping Microsoft from controlling the Net must organize an alternative authentication system -- preferably many such systems. This is the linchpin to the Net of tomorrow. If we let Microsoft capture it, Microsoft will control the choke points of commerce and communications for decades to come.

Maybe it's inevitable. Maybe resistance is futile. But the odds also were long against American patriots who stood up to a greedy, power-hungry king in 1776.