Johannesburg — Amid times when the Linux battle cry "Death to Microsoft" is amplified by sensation-hungry media organisations to a crescendo of opinions, reports and press releases, Space Age Technologies reconfirms its Microsoft commitments and still sees no "value for its customers" in diversifying its offering to include Linux solutions. Is this a clear case of business myopia, you might ask, or is there more to this firm resolve?

Since (too) much has already been written about the titanic Linux vs Microsoft struggle, I would like to use this opportunity to identify and expose some of the most important arguments about the merits of Linux compared to Microsoft and at the same time try to build a compelling case for Microsoft for most small businesses owners.

Linux pundits regularly cite the triple argument "security, cost and freedom of choice" as the main factor proving the "superiority" of the Linux platform. Even though such an argument fails to address many of the areas where the Microsoft platform wins hands-down, such as manageability, massive developer support and standardisation to mention just a few, there is still enough evidence to convincingly refute each of the above arguments.

While it is true that more worms and viruses attack the Microsoft platform than any other platform, the corollary, however, that the Microsoft platform is more insecure is not true. How can that be? First of all we have to try to understand the motivations behind the average worm or virus writer. In short, they want to make headlines, and the easiest way to achieve this, is to attack the target with the biggest chance of serving their purposes, in short, the installed Microsoft base. Even before Microsoft announced the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative", it was a not so well publicised fact that Microsoft consistently beats the Linux competition in the number of critical security vulnerabilities discovered over a period of time.

This simple argument leads us to conclude that the number of reported security breaches will change in favour of Microsoft if Linux should ever achieve numerical superiority on the desktop side (an especially "lucrative market" for virus/worm writers since they can coerce the unsuspecting user to facilitate their devious intentions). Microsoft, not content with such an argument (and in fact, seldom using it), will further do all in its capacity to drive its "secure by design, secure by default and secure by deployment" philosophy. With such organised resolve, arguments of even the staunchest Linux supporters will soon be moot on this particular point.

Most organisations are ecstatic about the idea of installing Linux without requiring an operating system licence, little realising they are caught off guard by one of the oldest marketing tricks in history: "I lure you with something free so that I can make money on something else!" An operating system is just one part of a computing infrastructure and many more components (such as hardware, consulting and other software) are needed to deliver a full solution. With this in mind it suddenly becomes clear why the much publicised city of Munich migration to a (free) Linux-based infrastructure is more than 10% more expensive than a similar Microsoft infrastructure! The city of Munich's decision to migrate was not based on cost but instead on the apparent "freedom of choice", our next and possibly one of the most important arguments for Linux.

In this point most experts agree, Linux does promote competition and places tremendous pressure on Microsoft to innovate and produce products of exceptional quality just to maintain its dominant market position. This, however, is only part of the picture. True diversity, in SAT's opinion, not only depends on having a choice in operating systems and office applications, but being able to choose from a diverse range of interoperable business applications and capable developers that can modify them according to business need, an area where the Microsoft platform and its huge army of third-party developers really shine. While applications written for one Linux distribution often do not run without modification on another, Microsoft has standardised the operating system and office applications landscape to such an extent that ordinary users do not have to worry about "minor" details such as system and document compatibility.

With the above arguments we have stuck our proverbial neck out and defended the Microsoft software against the most common arguments from Linux supporters, but wait, there seems to be more...

The following information was posted to the Microsoft Web site on 25 June 2003:

"Over the last three decades, technology has transformed the way we work, play, and communicate. Today, we access information and people from around the world in an instant. Groundbreaking technologies have opened the door to innovations in every field of human endeavour, delivering new opportunity, convenience and value to our lives.

"Since its founding in 1975, Microsoft has been a leader in this transformation. As a reflection of that role - and to help us focus on the opportunities that lie ahead - we have established and embraced a new corporate mission.

"Microsoft's mission: To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realise their full potential."

Appreciating Microsoft's phenomenal success in realising its previous vision of "A computer on every desk", the above elegant, yet extremely easy to understand mission statement embodies a dream that all businesses can relate to. With Microsoft's huge R&D budget, past successes and unparalleled ability to commoditise complex software systems, it appears to be the only company with enough credibility to envision and then realise such a lofty goal. While it may be true that it will receive ample financial reward should it succeed (as is any businesses main endeavour), the realisation of this goal would undoubtedly be to everybody's advantage.

It is this last argument that has the most staying power with us at Space Age Technologies. Over the last few years we have witnessed an incredible transformation in the ease and ubiquity of information access, a transformation that was in no small part made possible by Microsoft technologies and visions. Microsoft's three-year-old .NET strategy offers only a glimpse of a bold new future. It is this glimpse, however, that is enough to make Space Age Technologies incredibly excited about the future. Are we prepared to not pursue this future just because Microsoft is driving it? I do not think so!

In closing, I would like to think again about the question raised in the title. However, instead of asking whether to choose Linux or Microsoft, I would rather implore you to ask the bigger question and base your decision on this answer: "What solution makes best long-term sense to my organisation?"

Mark Geschke is MD, Space Age Technologies