In-Reply-To: <199505230248.TAA05458@nbor.borwankar.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Mon, 22 May 1995, Nitin Borwankar - MetaNews wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May 1995 Rex Ballard wrote:
> > 
> > Unfortunately, although MSN uses Internet Infrastructure as the 
> > transmission layer, MSN also uses Lan Manager (extended) as the session 
> > layer.  The result of this is:
>  
> > 	Only Windows95 machines will be able to access MSN servers.
> > 	Only WindowsNT machines will be usable as MSN servers.
> 
> This kind of stuff has worked in the PC world, it is not likely to
> work in the Internetworked world where interoperability between existing
> infrastructure is important. By the way I am coming from a PC background
> and have moved to Linux, I am not an old Unix die-hard, just a new one.

Welcome to the fold :-).

When predicting the actions of Microsoft, I am reminded of the parable of the
man and the snake.  The man sees a poisenous snake and realizes that it is
frozen.  I a moment of compassion, he brings the snake home, warms it up, and
brings it something to eat.  As he puts down the food the snake gives him a
lethal bite.  As the man is dying, he asks "snake why, after I saved your
life, did you kill me?", to which the snake replied, "you knew I was a snake
when you picked me up, what did you expect me to do, kiss you? 

Now, consider the track record of Microsoft.  Tandy helped Microsoft by
giving the tiny company an opportunity to make the Basic-in-Rom in 1977.  By
1980 Microsoft was using the money from the TRS-80 to develop the MS-DOS
product that would put Tandy out of the market as a market leader.  IBM
watched Microsoft funnel most of the money that was supposed to be going into
OS/2 into Windows 3.0. 

Third party applications vendors such as Lotus, Word-Perfect, Borland, and
Dbase abandonded CP/M and supported the exclusive features of Microsoft, even
to the point of jumping into the BASIC-in-ROM on the early PC machines.  They
loyally put their energy into OS/2, then Windows 3.0, and even put in the
"Protected Mode" features which forced upgrades to Windows 3.1.  When they
were no longer needed, because Microsoft had developed it's own applications,
the 3rd party support was strangled to near-death through bundling agreements
which effectively gave Microsoft a 90% stake of the applications market. 

If Lotus expects to make any money on SmartSuite, it won't be on a
Microsoft Operating System.  Borland and Word-perfect have no place
in the Word/Excel/Access bundled Microsoft market. (the emprorer has
no clothes)

Now, MSN wants the business community to "trust them" one more time!

> Although LANMAN gives Microsoft an instant lock-in, it could also be
> an instant lock-out. MS has been trying to foist LAN MAN on corporate 
> users for the last 5 years and has failed miserably, succeeding only in
> locking itself out of the networked world, until TCP/IP came along.
> The fact is LAN MAN's architecture doesn't allow routing so it can only
> support monolithic models like MSN, not distributed models like the
> heterogenous net.
Current versions of LanMan work under UDP/IP.  As does the SMB server.

> After this first wave of technology ( deploying old technology in new
> places ie current MS moves on the net  ) on the Net subsides, and real 
> 'net-native' architectures emerge,

Bottom line, Microsoft must bet the entire company against the possibility
of a Unix dominated market in which it must play on an equal footing with
the rest of the industry (no more secret-calls).

> it will become clear that distributed, *heterogenous* clients and *hetero
> genous* servers will form the fabric of the global net.

Microsoft has frantically been trying to get NT ported to other 
platforms, but reluctance to distribute source code has hampered the 
entire process.

> "LANMAN in IP" is like "steam-driven-oars" technology.
Yes.

> When the steam engine first came along, maritime applications of steam
> were restricted to steam-driven oars that automated the rowing process.
> It was only when steam-ships came along that maritime commerce took off.
> MSN, LANMAN-in-IP, even closed interfaces like AOL etc., are 
> "steam-driven-oars" on the Internet.
> Wait for the steam-ships, that's when the fun begins.

Remember, the Railroad hindered the growth of the Automobile for years by 
having communities pass laws saying that a pedestrian had to walk in 
front of the car and wave a red flag.  Prodigy may deliberately lose
in order to force ISPs off the net (every ISP could instantly become
lawyer-bait for a planted inflammatory posting posted to an unmoderated 
news-group).

> An interesting article on similar themes -
> in the latest Wired - "Bill's bet-the-company strategy" by Dave Winer.

Bill will have to either bet every resource the company has (advertizing, 
alliances, political clout,...) to beat Unix.  I seriously doubt that
Microsoft can maintain it's Monopoly in the face of the public's mass 
exposure to UNIX servers (99% of the web servers and ISP servers are *NIX
based).

> > 	Microsoft gets a "Free Ride" at the cost of Unix, Government, and 
> > 		Business users of the internet.
>
> MSN may become part of the net and an important part of it, but take over
> the net - not likely.

There are several factions that would like to take over the net.  It 
would take an Act of God or an Act of Congress.  The Oklahoma bombing,
and other man-made disasters may be used to try and get someone to
"shut down the internet".  Or at least let AT&T push ATM to the
NIC, let Novell push IPX, and let Microsoft push Windows-NT.

For 20 years now, UNIX has been this "well kept secret" (that only about 
1 million people new) and got a ton of bad press, like it was inherantly
inferior to MS-DOS.  Even Bill Gates, when claiming that NT was a "better 
unix than Unix" made most of his comparisons to Unix WITHOUT X11/R5 
Windows.  X11/R6 Windows has features Microsoft could only wish for.

> After all, if things get as bad as they did on the PC side ( with 
> DOJ getting involved and all that ), major sites could just refuse to
> route MS traffic and they'd have to get a global leased-line network
> or equivalent. Yes MS owns part of UUNET, a major hub, but remember
> the "net routes around damage" and centralized control is effectively
> "damage".

The challenge is not to try and shut-down the long-lines, it is to try 
and shut down the local ISPs.  The Prodigy ruling could be used to shut
down all of the ISPs in a matter of weeks.  Prodigy may have deliberately 
lost the suit.  The irony is that Prodigy may be scrambling to survive 
MSN in a few months.

> > 	Tightly coupled OLE2 linkages will be unmonitorable by Unix SA's,
> > 		and will result in a "Microsoft Only" subnet at the expense 
> > 		of everyone else.
> > 	Servers wishing to use MSN technology will ultimately end up paying 
> > 		80% of their revenue to Microsoft.

> > 	Microsoft will selectively "kill" competitor products until it has a
> > 		monopoly of the internet.
> This last statement needs clarification.
> What "products" run the Internet that are "competitor" products ?  The
> Net runs on routers and cables and switching hardware - not the business
> MS is in.

The net consists of an infrastructure of Unix servers, TCP/IP lines, and
Clients and Servers written in Freely Distributable Source Code (FDSC). This
infrastructure provided the "agreement" required to keep 2 million potential
"factions", all technically brilliant, communicating effectively. 

Several attempts to alter this agreement have failed (OSI, GOSIP, SNA,
NetWare, X.25, Frame-Relay, and ATM).  The effect was something like
a "Mexican Stand-off".  The minute anyone felt they were being excluded
by some sort of alliance, they would start publishing more FDSC, which
would break-up the exclusive alliance.  Even Motif, on of the few
"Royalties Required" standards, is kept open (Low-cost source-code)
by the willingness of Sun and others to start "shooting" with
Xview.

The internet exists as a conversation for possibility and opportunity.  
Microsoft has used cynicism and resignation, along with ignorance to
maintain it's market dominance over Unix (all flavors) for 10 years.

In business, Personal computers were first viewed as "toys" for
people who brought in their own.  Later they were protected from
the "Real-world" by Mainframes and Mini's that let them access the
enterprise data, but didn't let them go out to the public.  Today,
Fire-Walls protect LANs loaded with unprotected MS-Windows machines
running TCP/IP which can run FTP and Telnet with a click of a button,
and can do so without even the security of a password.

As departments begin to move toward providing informationation via 
Web-Servers, updated with local Workstations, the need for the simple
protections of passwording, privliged-user-and-kernal only operating
systems becomes crucial. 

> Also free software like Linux is impossible to "kill", I am ready
> to bet. Even if MS succeeds in killing Sun, DEC, IBM and all the other
> companies who's hardware run's the 'net, there'll still be Linux which
> can route, bridge, slice, dice and wax the floor.

It's nice to see that you've tried it out.  It's amazing how quickly
people adapt.  Actually, any UNIX will do that.  Linux just happens to be 
very inexpensive.

It will probably be an artificially induced death.  Legislation, rumors,
and a few carefully manipulated acts of terrorism will turn the 
Linux-based ISP into the equivalent of Hitler's Jews.

> > Bill Gates has openly stated that he wants to rule the world.  
> > Establishing a monopoly control over the Internet in the same way he has 
> > established monopoly control over PC operating systems, applications, and 

> Yes, and look at the increasing legal problems he's getting himself into.
> Perhaps Microsoft-minions are, as we speak, busy deleting all old e-mail
> referring to "dominating the Internet", just in case.

The Intuit merger raised the specter of Microsoft effectively becoming an
international "Branch-Bank" without the structure of regulation by the 
treasury department.  These same government agencies would love to see
MSN using Snitchware to merit "Cleaning out the Rooming Houses" without
using warrants.  In New Jersey, the landlord of a Rooming House can
search the premises for anything he wants.  If he wants to get rid of
a tennant, he just calls in the health inspector.

> > hardware (try getting a new PC that DOESN'T come with a full suite of 
> > Microsoft Applications), would actually give him almost that much power.
> Yes, things look pretty bad but I believe the tide is turning and I
> still think it's possible to look forward to a world not ruled by Megasloth.

Perhaps, Linux is the "David" that will bring down "Goliath".  Perhaps the
Unix community (BSDI, Solaris, Uniware...) will start getting realistic about
their pricing structures as well.  Charging $700/user because "Microsoft
does", is like using drugs because "Mikey does".  Users aren't going to pay
$700 for Unix until they see $700 worth of unique value.  Until then, Unix is
(for 60 million out of 80 million users) an unknown.  People need to be 
brought through their fear of the unknown.

> Nitin Borwankar.
> nitin@borwankar.com
> Principal, Borwankar R&D.
>  

	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue May 30 01:19:22 1995