http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/06/18/010618oppetreley.xml The Open Source Nicholas Petreley June 21, 2001 WAKE UP, open-source community. The battle is not for the desktop; it is not for the server; it is not for the operating system; it is not for the development environment; it is not about the GNU General Public License (GPL) vs. Microsoft's business model. The battle is primarily about who will control user-authentication services. One of my favorite scenes in the movie Ghostbusters II takes place during the taping of a TV show, "World of the Psychic, with Dr. Peter Venkman." During the show, a guest named Elaine reveals how she found out the date for the end of the world, "As I told my husband: It was in the Paramus Holiday Inn. I was having a drink at the bar, alone, and this alien approached me. He started talking to me, he bought me a drink, and then I think he must have used some kind of a ray or a mind-control device because he forced me to follow him to his room; and that's where he told me about the end of the world." Bill Murray replies incredulously, "So your alien had a room at the Holiday Inn in Paramus?" As humorous as that may appear, I have come to the conclusion that one of two things must be true: Either Microsoft has a mind-control device similar to the one mentioned above, or some members of the mainstream media are as gullible as Elaine. I can think of no other explanation why people are reacting so differently to Microsoft's .NET than they did to IBM, Oracle, and Sun's promotion of NC (network computing) a few years back. I have maintained for years that NC is the inevitable future. I also believe Microsoft knew this to be true even as it fought NC tooth and nail. Once it squashed the real threat -- the type of NC that would have been free from Microsoft's control -- it simply had to redefine NC as some new plan created by Microsoft. Hence .NET was born. Now that Microsoft has convinced much of the mainstream media that .NET is something new, all .NET has to do is simply ride the natural momentum of NC that Microsoft managed only to stall. None of this would have been possible without the mind-control ray, which has been working beautifully. Compared to the acceptance .NET now enjoys, the reaction to NC was virulent almost beyond belief. Columnists and pundits denounced the centralized computing model and exalted the PC almost daily for the better part of two years. In fact, the media spread so much propaganda and misinformation about NC that my late Webzine, NC World, published a bimonthly expos of the idiocy that was printed by mainstream publications. Some of you who may have followed NC World may recall that the series was called "Running Interference." We made more than a few enemies by poking fun at the reams of poor journalism about NC. I wish I could point you to archives of the articles, but I'm not aware of any way to reach them. The campaign against NC was ultimately successful. For that among other reasons, the magazine folded, and the content disappeared forever, at least as far as I know. That's a shame because I would love to review all those articles that trumpeted the virtues of the NetPC and proclaimed how Microsoft's zero-administration Windows initiative would enable the PC to retain its regal status without having to sacrifice the benefits of network computing. Where is the NetPC and zero-administration Windows the concept that earned my coveted "Beverage through the nose award" that year? They disappeared the moment people stopped perceiving network computing as a threat to Microsoft and began to view .NET as something other than what it really is: Network computing redefined to allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly control. The network computing concepts promoted by IBM, Oracle, Sun, and others were almost identical to .NET concepts as promoted by Microsoft. Just look at the Microsoft white paper on HailStorm published at www.microsoft.com/net/HailStorm.asp if you have any doubts. All of the network computing principles are there, including the most important one: That users should be able to access services from any location via simple appliances rather than having to duplicate services and data on individual PCs. To realize the goals set forth by .NET, you have to have platform independence. Centralization of data and resources. Reliability through redundancy. In other words, you need to adopt all of the elements of network computing that were anathema to the mainstream media before they were re-invented by Microsoft. (It should come as no surprise that I should at this point remind you of Petreley's first law of computer journalism, which is "No technology exists until Microsoft invents it.") The problem with Microsoft's .NET is that it is designed to establish Microsoft as the controlling entity of the future of network computing. Microsoft is not only planning to provide the platform and the tools. It is going to provide the authentication services that allow Microsoft to control how people use platforms and tools. It is the only way Microsoft can thrive in the post-PC world. Microsoft realizes it can no longer grow based on sales of software upgrades or licenses. So it has to start charging for authentication and access to services. Many journalists recognize the most obvious consequence of this scheme. This is how Microsoft can keep you paying for its software without having to tempt you with updates. But what many are missing is the more dangerous threat behind this closed part of Microsoft's so-called new open-standards approach to network computing. If Microsoft controls the management of user data and user authentication, it controls the flow of the services others can provide. It's the Windows desktop all over again, business-wise. You can't compete with Microsoft without first making a deal with Microsoft over something as basic as where your customer's data is stored and how one must access it. If that thought doesn't bother you, given Microsoft's abuse of its authority in the past, then by all means, embrace what you must view as the beneficent dictator of the future of network computing. After all, most of the concepts of .NET are themselves desirable because .NET is, indeed, simply a warmed over version of platform-neutral network computing. And network computing was the right direction to go in the first place. If it does bother you that Microsoft could control most authentication services, however, then now is the time to join me in sending a wake-up call to the open source community. We must not only be diligent to provide the operating system, the tools, and the standards upon which the future of network computing may be built. We must also provide the services based on those tools. To do any less is to allow Microsoft to slip through the back door and sabotage the future of open standards and open source while we are distracted by the battles Microsoft pretends to wage in the foreground. Nick is the founding editor of VarLinux.org ( www.varlinux.org ). Reach him at nicholasat_private ISN is hosted by SecurityFocus.com --- To unsubscribe email isn-unsubscribeat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 02:31:21 PDT