It's the desktop, stupid LinuxWorld.com 2/2/01 Nicholas Petreley, LinuxWorld.com Linux is doing extremely well in the server market these days. But there are three things Linux needs to conquer next in order to stay alive in the server space: The desktop, the desktop, and the desktop.
Advertisement On this topic Thinking Unix - IT strategy for the long run The Enduring Value of IT for Financial Institutions: Highlighting Linux and Web Services Linux Grows in Popularity: Look for Industrial-Strength Linux in the Future Enrolling in Qt University Inside IBM's Linux Technology Center How a Linux standard would benefit distributors

Linus Torvalds himself recently said that the desktop is king. But I get the impression he sees the desktop market as simply a competitive challenge. To many of us, the thought of Linux dominating the desktop truly is an escape from tyranny. And we don't care if we end up running one brand of Linux, several brands of Linux, or a big mix of Linux and the various free BSDs. Simply put, what drives us most is the desire to see Microsoft lose its control over the desktop.

We'll all be happy to let Microsoft own a piece of the desktop market and even make billions in the process. But we do not want to allow Microsoft a controlling majority. Statements like that always trigger a wave of emails from readers eager to accuse me of bashing Microsoft. (When have I ever?) Many of you will undoubtedly defend the quality of Windows 2000 as compared with previous versions of Windows or versus Linux.

LinuxWorld.com links LinuxWorld.com home Best of LinuxWorld.com The Legacy Files The Penguin Brief Version Control Linux links Linux forums

But if that's what you think this is about, you're truly not getting it. This is not about hating Windows. This is not about hating the talented folks at Microsoft. This is not about hating Bill Gates, nor punishing a successful business. This is not even a war about the quality of operating systems. This is a war about control.

Now, the war between Windows and OS/2 -- that one was about quality. If we gave it any thought, we OS/2 fans knew darned well that if OS/2 replaced Windows as the default desktop operating system, IBM would leverage OS/2 to force as many people as possible to buy IBM server operating systems and IBM hardware. We OS/2 fans were simply resigned to the fact that we were going to be forced to buy something no matter what. And if we were going to be stuck with something, we'd rather have been stuck with OS/2 than with Windows.

But the war between Windows and Linux (or between Windows and any other open source operating system) is not about quality. At the very least, it is not about quality alone. It truly is about freedom from tyranny at both the desktop and the server levels. We have already seen what kind of future we could expect with Microsoft at the helm. Microsoft has the audacity to pursue its despicable antipiracy tactics only because Microsoft owns the desktop.

I grudgingly call them antipiracy tactics, because many of these schemes are simply a means by which Microsoft forces its customers to buy multiple copies of its products when it should not be necessary to do so. As it is, I cannot reinstall Windows on my notebook as I normally would in order to restore its stability, because doing so would force me to wipe out the existing Linux partitions.

The copy of Windows that comes with my notebook is deliberately designed so that customers can't use it on other machines. Microsoft is hard at work tying its software to hardware even tighter so that you can't replace your existing hardware without also purchasing another copy of Windows or other Microsoft applications. Would Microsoft be able to get away with these tactics if it did not dominate the desktop market? Would Microsoft even attempt such things? Quite the contrary, I believe Microsoft would avoid these tactics in order to win more customers.

With Linux or BSD on almost every desktop, you can use whatever you want at the server, including Windows. With Linux or BSD on the desktop, you can also purchase a copy of Windows and add it to your desktop options if you wish. You can change your hardware and continue using the same copy of Linux or BSD. In fact you can install the same copy of most free operating systems on as many servers and clients as you wish.

More importantly, that's the way it would stay even if free operating systems eventually dominated both desktop and server. Free operating systems are not controlled by a single megalomaniacal corporation that wants to rule the world. Free operating systems were designed by people who are forced to assume a heterogeneous environment.

So these operating systems are designed to be inclusive by necessity. In sharp contrast, as long as Microsoft controls the desktop, we know that Microsoft will do whatever possible to use its desktop dominance for extending its control to include the server and everything in between.

Microsoft's goal is simple: to create a proprietary feature or technology that depends upon adoption of Windows at the server, and then add that feature or technology to the Windows desktop and get customers hooked on it. Microsoft has tried things such as user profiles, active directory, and hybrid proprietary technologies like its version of Kerberos authentication.

Microsoft has leveraged its Office productivity suite, as well. And now it is attempting to do the same with its .NET strategy. So far nothing Microsoft has offered has been irresistible enough to hook a significant portion of the market into committing to an all-Windows environment at the server.

But Microsoft is the most tenacious corporation on the planet. It operates under the principle that it must not stop trying to rule the world until either it or its competitors are dead. Therefore we users and contributors to free operating systems should operate under the assumption that we cannot be assured any longevity in the server market unless we reduce Microsoft's desktop share to a manageable minority.

Then and only then can we expect the business world to be truly free of Microsoft's tyrannical approach to computing at every level.

Nick Petreley is the founding editor of VarLinux.org (www.varlinux.org). Reach him at nicholas@petreley.com.