Thought for the day: Flights of fancy

As the Windows versus Linux debacle continues to escalate into a heady mix of emotion, mud-slinging and complexity, Simon Moores wonders what has happened to truth and objectivity, the basics of technological debate.

What I would call "technocredulity" is the new curse of the 21st century. It's what happens when subjectivity becomes mixed up with or confused with technology and produces the worst kind of kind of digital fundamentalism.

In reality, human nature remains the same as it has always been. Football replaced chariot racing and bear-baiting and, where Windows quickly replaced IBM’s OS/2, Linux looks set to make 2004 its watershed year with both Microsoft and Unix suffering as a consequence.

The challenge, if you happen to live in the decision-making world of IT, is cutting through the expensive marketing fog that surrounds any platform in 2004, from the simple Xbox to the largest datacentre. The computing world is neatly dividing itself into two camps where spin and propaganda have become as important as whitepapers and column inches in shaping opinions.

One problem for us all in the industry today lies in recognising what is impartial and accurate reporting and what is not. The most immediate example surrounds the Windows versus Linux debate, which is both complex, emotional and frequently misleading, the industry equivalent of the Hutton inquiry to separate fantasy from fact.

Newham Council’s decision to reject Linux because it would pose "unacceptable levels of risk" to council services may be considered a small victory for Microsoft in an increasingly fast moving and global struggle between the two computing ideologies, but why should countries such as Germany, China, Israel and Thailand take an opposite view?

It’s a long story and, invariably, a question of cost, with Microsoft downplaying potential savings from Linux, arguing that while it may have lower initial licensing fees, in the longer term, its overall costs to businesses in the form of training, support and integration are higher than Windows.

Look deeply into the total cost of ownership and performance issues, however, and for each example offered by Microsoft, you’ll find equally compelling arguments from IBM, Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard. This leaves what counts for truth occupying a shrinking grey area between the many different strategic marketing interests, and truth is an increasingly relative commodity in the struggle between open source and proprietary software.

This will, I suspect, be the year that the industry, like government, invests in managing expectations and shaping our perceptions, having decided that very few of us have the time or the inclination to wade through the technical arguments.

Watch out for a different style of marketing as the big names experiment with their messages. You see, in 2003 being a customer was good enough, but from 2004 you may have to choose sides and become a believer too.

What do you think?

Do you think the Windows/Linux debate is overhyped? Tell us in an e-mail

ComputerWeekly.com reserves the right to edit and publish answers on the website. Please state if your answer is not for publication.

Setting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and opinions of leading industry analyst Dr Simon Moores of Zentelligence.

Acting globally, Zentelligence (Research) advises governments, suppliers, business and the media on the evolution, application and delivery of leading-edge technologies and specialises in the areas of eGovernment and information security.

For further information on Zentelligence and its research, presentation and analyst services visit www.zentelligence.com