Linux in Government: Winning in Australia Against Microsoft TNG

Tom Adelstein: Is Linux and open source winning or losing in Australia?

Con Zymaris: We're winning, but it's no cake-walk.

We face a wall we need to scale carefully, little by little - no way to race up this hurdle. No previous contenders have reached the top yet. Australia has come the furthest, and that in itself is adding momentum to our efforts. As we get more effective at climbing, it adds even more oomph.

We're winning in terms of acknowledgment from most industry stakeholders: The Australian federal and several state governments have enacted various procurement programs for accelerating the uptake of open source software. Corporates that won’t consider deploying open source software are now looked upon as anachronistic luddites by their peers. I've even been told of situations where vendors and staff have been fired for emphasizing Microsoft instead of Linux. The message is seeping out and opinions swayed.

We lack a concerted, co-ordinated, polished and effective means of disseminating our successes to boost our momentum even further. We lack case studies, easy access to non-geek-oriented marketing and single-point-of-contact product and solution information. We're working to change that within some of the organisations in which I'm involved.

For instance, Open Source Victoria is building a cataloging platform for open source products, services and companies. We will make this platform available to other organisations around the world, so they too can offer a similar buyer-friendly means of disseminating sales-oriented information on open source technologies, to their constituent markets.

We filed a complaint with the Australian competition watchdog, the ACCC, with respect to the competition-reducing activities perpetrated in the local market. It is almost impossible to buy a name-brand PC or laptop without also paying for Microsoft Windows, like it or not. This limits the corporate desktop market arena in which Linux can play. It reduces the opportunities for us and other Linux businesses. We want such anti-competitive activities stopped.

We filed another complaint related to some government procurement, particularly by the various state Departments of Education. These organisations spend around $100 million per refresh cycle on Microsoft software. They do not give competitors, like Linux vendors, a chance to submit tenders. This too is wrong and we want it changed.

TA: What’s your largest problem?

CZ: Most untrained observers believe that success on the desktop is the sole arbiter of success for Linux. After all, the desktop is what they see as the totality of the computing environment since it sits in front of them each day. If their desktop still sports a Microsoft logo, then that means that Linux has failed to wrest control of the industry from Microsoft, right?

Well, as IT professionals, we know this is inaccurate. Linux has permeated broadly and reached critical-mass in many of the transparent to the user areas already. It might take Linux another decade to own the desktop space, but in an open and fair market, economics dictates that friction-free software like Linux will dominate in the long run.

This all obviously dovetails into why 50% of Australian organisations now use open source somewhere within their computing environments. This is a tremendous change - only a few years ago, most IT managers had never heard of the terms Linux or open source. Now, every mainstream IT publication in the country carries Linux columns or Linux stories and every competitor advertisement from Microsoft targets Linux – which establishes Linux as the only real alternative in the marketplace.

TA: I’m seeing a change in Microsoft’s tactics to kill Linux in other parts of the world. For example, the BSA has backed off their aggressive enforcement and pirated copies of Windows products seem everywhere. How are they approaching the market in Australia?

CZ: BSA, or the BSAA as they are called here, still push the line on insuring that software on corporate networks be ratified for its legitimacy. This has some benefits to us, as it reminds users that managing proprietary software licenses is a serious cost and an even more serious legal liability.

However, Australia doesn't have the software copyright infringements endemic throughout the Asian, African and Middle-East regions. Consequently, the Australian government hasn’t jumped onto the deploy Linux to bridge the digital divide and to also reduce software piracy many other countries in the region have.

In countries, like Thailand, India, Malaysia, etc., the government has seen Linux as both a means of reducing the IP violation which affects their World Trade Organisation standing, as well as driving down the cost of computing for the masses. And only in such countries has Microsoft introduced cut-price variants of its Windows and Office franchises.

Microsoft tries to obfuscate its panic at the growth of Linux by claiming that they’ve introduced these products at 90% off the price of Windows and Office to combat software piracy. This is codswallop – software piracy has existed in these countries for decades and Microsoft has done nothing about it, until now. Why? Because Microsoft fears more than piracy - is that users will adapt to an alternate platform Microsoft doesn’t control. Namely, Linux.

By dangling lower cost, yet nobbled versions of its products, as a means of gaining legitimacy for its constituents, Microsoft hopes to hoodwink these various governments into pitching Windows in lieu of Linux for their citizens. I think Microsoft will find these governments much too smart to fall for that line. Microsoft also risks establishing a pricing trend: If Thailand can get 90% off Windows and Office, why can’t Australians? What do we need to do to get that deal for our citizens? Obviously, we could ramp up the use of Linux!

While we don’t get the 90% off products in Australia, none of the main-street computer retail outlets offer full-price, business-legitimate Microsoft software anymore. They only offer Student and Teacher Editions and Academic Editions, which are sold at 75% discount to the real editions, even though they are ostensibly the same product when you peel the sticker off.

Now Microsoft would know that almost all of these cut-price supposedly education-use-only versions of its software will also be used for business. Who’s going to know if they break the license agreement? Microsoft would still prefer to make less money on its software as long as it prevents more users drifting off to open source alternatives.

Microsoft knows if they tried to sell Office at full price nowadays in most Australian market segments, the uptake will be dismal. Demand is bad enough already. I understand that only 20% of users are on Office 2003, two years after that version of the application was released. By now, even Windows users know just how much functionality they can get with OpenOffice.org, for zero cost. Dropping a few hundred bucks just to run a legit copy of Microsoft Office no longer carries real appeal for families or also small business.

TA: Do you think Microsoft has reverted to practices they used in the US against Netscape when it comes to global Linux?

CZ: With Netscape, all Microsoft had to do was bundle IE with Windows. By the time that most users upgraded to that version of Windows, few would bother to download an alternative browser. Give that recipe 5 years, and Microsoft has the bulk of the market they can use to enforce product lock-in through non-adherence to web standards, proprietary add-ins like Active-X, etc. In time, Navigator would die because Netscape didn't have alternative revenue streams. Microsoft could cut off its air supply.

Of course Microsoft could do this because they have deep pockets. But they can only do it in situations where their competitor needs an air supply. With Linux, they’ve found the ultimate combatant and most frustrating challenger. It has no parent company whose air supply to cut off.

I do not see any legitimate process that Microsoft can leverage to attack Linux, at least without causing themselves serious revenue damage. Or without risking mutually-assured patent destruction from Linux’s supporters. So, they may eventually bundle a free mini copy of Microsoft Office with future versions of Windows, as a way to keep the combination of Linux and OpenOffice.org off most desktops. But this will only serve to wipe off 40% of their profit by gutting Office sales – never a good look to Wall Street.

TA: What do you think the can do?

CZ: Microsoft can use covert pressure on its OEM partners to avoid giving Linux any leg-up on the desktop. You see, Microsoft can still be a great success even if 90% of all servers worldwide are running on Linux – most users will never get to know that Linux powers their corporate or ISP network – it’s invisible after all. As soon as 10% of desktops run Linux, then that's a grave threat to Microsoft. At 10% of the market, Linux will attract most of the horizontal-market application support it currently lacks and, more importantly, most missing driver support. Both events will help Linux accelerate to even deeper penetration of the desktop market, pulsing the feedback cycle again and again.

TA: Please give us an update on your complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over anti-competitive tactics allegedly used by Microsoft . Where is the heading? Do you see a precedent for complaints in other countries?

CZ: There’s not a lot we can state at this stage – it’s early days yet.

Our contacts at the ACCC have asked us to collate more specific examples of situations where Microsoft is misusing market power. We're also seeking examples of agreements with its OEM hardware vendors, which contain exclusionary provisions, known primary boycotts. If readers have such information they can conveniently pass on to us, that would greatly help.

Depending on your country’s competition laws, similar actions may be possible with your national equivalent to the ACCC. We believe that such activities fundamentally obstruct open and competitive markets, so if your industry policy makers had any sense, there would be similar laws in each legal jurisdiction.

TA: In an article you wrote in May, you stated that “Linux and open source software have a problem in Australia's education sector. “ To paraphrase one assertion you also said you had “an uphill battle against entrenched ideology and frightened government bureaucrats”. Is that changing at all?

CZ: Unfortunately, no.

We raise this as a serious issue. And as mentioned, we are filing a complaint with the ACCC on this matter too. Few stakeholders were even aware that these problems existed - it’s our job to apprise them of the situation.

For example, I'm on a number of mailing lists run by IT teachers. I chip in every now and then with advice on where to download open source equivalents to software they or their students need. We've had a series of lengthy discussions on this topic on several of these lists. Most teachers didn't even realise that the various Departments of Education were simply handing the business across to Microsoft, without it going to tender. The teachers thought that Microsoft, along with other vendors, bid for the business and had won it fair and square. They now know that this isn't the case. They now understand why we pursue this as an issue.

We’re also raising the dangerous issue of having the Departments of Education undertake some serious bargaining with Microsoft. These Departments are in an excellent position to leverage the fact that Microsoft abhors students learning on alternatives like Linux and OpenOffice.org. They can in turn use this in negotiations. The message from the Departments of Education should be very clear:

“Microsoft, it costs the Department of Education a large sum of money to maintain and support your software. If you don't help us defray these costs soon, by reducing the licence fees to zero and covering $20 million per year for the ongoing pain of supporting your products, we will move to alternatives such as Linux and OpenOffice.org even faster than planned."

Microsoft may baulk at saying yes to the first few Departments that try this, but even though they will fear the Domino Effect that saying yes will generate in the region and internationally, may eventually concede.

This is because the potential loss for Microsoft of having millions of Australian schoolchildren enter the workforce fully versed in Linux and open source software, is immense. Education departments must therefore use this negotiation leverage to the full extent possible. Furthermore, most public-sector education facilities around the world can also use this technique.

TA: The publication,

CZ: It's good to see that the Guide had a strong positive response – I spent a fair bit of time writing it. . Thankfully for the readership, the Australian government bought in a professional team to polish it up into something reasonable.

The benefits of having the Guide are many and varied.

For starters, it's the first such document of its type in the world. While the Australian government isn't going to go out and spruik for open source software, the mere fact that this document even exists gives a strong message to other governments globally, as well as the corporate space. The Australian public sector spends around $10 billion per year on ICT, so could be classified as a serious user of software. If such an entity publicly states that open source software is viable for serious government business, then such software is viable for any size of organisation.

Further, since the Guide’s publication, it is now possible, as an open source advocate, to point to a single document which (hopefully) clearly and dispassionately looks at the pros and cons of adopting open source software at an enterprise level. This certainly cuts down on the amount of 'pre-sales' legwork we need to do with each organisation we talk to. Having the imprimatur of the Australian government on the front cover is also a plus.

TA: Advice to Linux and Open Source advocates in other regions?

CZ: The advice is simple. To lift the uptake of Linux and open source software, make it mainstream in every way possible. Here are a few ideas.

I think the time for general-purpose advocacy has passed – most software users can only go so far on the ideas which underpin open source and free software, irrespective of how intrinsically valuable those ideas are.

Advocacy from hereon should only be invoked when there are structural impediments which block the adoption of Linux, not for convincing most users to adopt Linux and open source. Take Linux and open source adoption to the next level by ‘selling’ solutions to prospective clients. Don’t try and sell users on the idea of open source software through advocacy - sell them the idea of open source by selling them the open source software itself.

Use open source as the foundations to solutions which solve real business problems and needs. Make available (in plain and understandable terms) information which allows potential users to more easily adopt open source software in greater numbers.

If you’re hiring Linux people, hire them through the existing job market channels, rather than creating alternate channels for Linux and open source only. This makes Linux appear on more peoples’ radar.

Rather than make yet another presentation to your Linux user group or conference, take an appropriately modified version to your next local lawyers’ conference, small business council meeting, teachers meeting etc. Go beyond the crowd which is already in the know. Find new pastures and convince your advocate colleagues to do the same.

Stop thinking provincially, parochially and peripherally. Linux and open source will be the main game in town in the coming years. Exactly how long that takes to happen is totally in our hands. Hop to it.