Printer ready

Is It Time Again For Microsoft And Unix?

By Jason Levitt

"Microsoft announces Microsoft Xenix OS, a portable operating system for 16-bit microprocessors. It is an interactive, multiuser, multitasking system that will run on Intel 8086, Zilog Z8000, Motorola M68000, and DEC PDP-11 series. All of Microsoft's existing system software (Cobol, Pascal, Basic, and DBMS) will be adapted to run under the Xenix system, and all existing software written for Unix OS will be compatible as well. "

--from a Microsoft press release, 1980

"Microsoft's Operating Systems Business announces Microsoft Linux, a portable operating system for 32-bit microprocessors. It is an interactive, multiuser, multitasking system that runs on Intel Pentium-class and Sun Sparc CPUs. Microsoft's Application Business will port major server applications (Active Directory, SQL Server, Exchange Server, IIS, etc.) to run under the Microsoft Linux system."

--my updated version of the Microsoft Operating Systems Business press release, 2000

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's breakup of Microsoft into two companies, one that sells the Windows operating system and one selling all the other applications, comes close to a historic moment: the 20th anniversary of Microsoft's first and only foray into the Unix operating system market.

While the breakup has been set aside pending appeals, it is interesting to consider what opportunities the court-ordered structure would afford Microsoft.

For instance, the court-ordered operating-systems business would provide an opportunity for Microsoft to offer Unix yet again. It would be an aggressive move of diversification into the lucrative dot-com space, and with Microsoft's lock on the desktop, it could only increase its revenue on the server side. But offering a Unix or Unix-like operating system is just one part of the equation. Porting Microsoft's server apps is the other. The key business proposition Microsoft is missing from its server strategy is portability to non-Windows platforms. How many more companies would buy SQL Server instead of Oracle if they could run SQL Server on Solaris or Linux? While it would be sufficient for Microsoft's applications business to merely port its server software to Red Hat and other versions of Linux, and not even bother having the operating-systems business offer its own version of Linux, a Microsoft-branded Linux would give the company the ability to maintain some quality control as well as offer the add-on technology necessary to handle COM/DCOM and other Microsoft hooks.

Market Share
It's no secret that Microsoft Windows is by far the market leader on desktops everywhere, but it's also no secret that the larger E-commerce sites and dot-coms are running some flavor of Unix or a Unix-like operating system on their back-office servers--not Windows 2000 or NT. While Microsoft has only recently released Beta 2 of its Windows 2000 DataCenter Server (required to run larger than eight-way symmetric multiprocessing boxes) and has only been shipping Windows 2000 Advanced Server (required for up to eight-way SMP boxes) since February, the largest and most robust sites on the Internet are happily using Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, as well as other flavors of Unix. (I refer to all these non-Microsoft operating systems as Unix for simplicity sake, though some, such as Linux, don't use any licensed Unix code). Sites that already run Windows NT will surely buy into Windows 2000 Server, but a Microsoft Linux, as well as Microsoft server applications that run on non-Windows platforms such as Solaris, would give Microsoft inroads into businesses that would never consider deploying Microsoft technologies on the server side.

A History Lesson
Based on Unix System III, Microsoft's Xenix (companies that licensed Unix from Bell Labs weren't allowed to call it Unix, so Microsoft came up with the name "Xenix") ran on the IBM PC/XT and didn't come with TCP/IP or any of the networking software we've come to expect with Unix systems. Microsoft didn't even sell to end users. Instead, it licensed Xenix to companies such as SCO, Tandy, and Intel, who turned around and sold a branded Xenix to users. Alas, by the mid-1980s, Microsoft quit the Unix business to concentrate full time on DOS and Windows. Microsoft never even released a version of Xenix for the Intel 80286 processor.

Pish-posh, you say?
It will be at least two years before we see if Windows 2000 Server is going to make much of a dent in the dot-com space, especially among those larger sites that already have Unix-based systems. Windows 2000 Server, in all its forms, is undoubtedly a great replacement for Windows NT Server, but large, scalable Internet sites still find operating systems such as Solaris and Linux easier and cheaper to deploy.

Sure, we can nit-pick about performance numbers and which platform has certain features the others lack, but ultimately, E-commerce sites that have to be built won't wait for the debate to subside. Amazon.com can't run on an operating system that needs to be rebooted every three days, even if that operating system has superior features. If, and that's still a qualified if, Microsoft eventually does get split in two, a Microsoft Linux, and the porting of Microsoft server applications to other platforms, could be one of the smartest moves Microsoft ever makes.

AuthorITies Archive
Send Us Your Feedback
Top of the Page

Lou Bertin: The Observer Lou offers a view of the good, the bad, and the bizarre developments in the technology business	Charles Pelton: Eye On IT Charles explores IT management issues and strategies that business and technology managers face.	Stuart Johnston: Redmond Watch As our eyes and ears in Redmond, Stuart gives his perspective on the latest events at Microsoft.	Rusty Weston: Matter Of Fact Rusty explores the facts and figures behind business technology.

---