News 

Talking to us recently, McGrath said that the Open Source operating system 'lacks the maturity of the Microsoft application stack. Customers are giving Linux the benefit of the doubt right now, but people's patience with performance issues and so on will wear thin.'

He expects that this year will see a 'continuation of that migration to x86 and the continuing evaluation of Linux', but that the honeymoon period will end, leaving Microsoft in 'an exceptional position'.

'Windows Server 2003 is able to deliver on any level, from file and print duty to 5/9s availability. Customers are starting to realise that Linux doesn't have that,' he said.

He said he expects the 'server market will continue to see growth, seeing people move to x86 systems,' with 'server consolidation as a key driver'.

The consolidation story makes good reading no matter which camp you are in. The sea change is companies migrating off Unix on RISC and onto commodity x86 boxes running Windows or Linux.

McGrath said that processors such as Intel's Itanium are driving this forward. 'Itanium II goes from strength to strength,' he said and offers 'phenomenal gains from a performance point of view.'

However the chip has been through a sticky period of late, with HP withdrawing from its development work on it with Intel. Yet McGrath insisted it 'has its place in the market, especially in comparison to RISC.'

There's no doubt in anyone's minds any longer that Microsoft is taking Linux as a real competitor at the server level. Yet on the client-side McGrath was dismissive. 'Client-side, we just don't believe Linux is there today,' he said. 'Ease of use presents a continuous challenge [with Linux desktops]. For one thing, there are so many different set up tools. Mapping a network drive feels like an achievement.'

Instead, Microsoft has focussed its marketing at server level. With its Get The Facts Campaign, Redmond took on the Linux camp directly - flying in the face of accusations that the documentation backing up its claims were too obviously Microsoft sponsored, too specific to make

ADVERTISEMENT

such general claims.

McGrath countered that he believed the campaign to have been, and continues to be, successful. 'Lots of people have very strong views about this. But I think it's been incredibly successful. It's stimulated factual debate around the market place. Whereas previously the arguments had been very ideological.

'Get the Facts was all about taking away myth and talking about reality. What we achieved with that is to address the TCO side of things and elevated the discussion to a facts-based discussion - that Linux is not free of charge.

'And it also enabled us to initiate some real discussions around security about why our platform is more secure than Open Source.'

McGrath pointed to research that showed Microsoft patched its vulnerabilities within 25 days on average compared with 57 days for the Open Source community. However, the Open Source camp has long pointed out that if you consider critical vulnerabilities, the picture is completely reversed.

McGrath conceded: 'Yes, the level of criticality is important,' but wondered whether, as a Linux customer, who to turn to if a hole was discovered. 'Where's the accountability?' he asked. 'If the community can't fix it then that leaves them open to attack.'

He argued that the amount of money Microsoft is pouring into security gives it a far more secure, reliable and consistent product range.

'We've made serious investments to build dedicated teams of people. We have consistent Windows update services. Microsoft continues to take security as a number one priority. How do we do this? Because we can afford to pay people.'

He added that Microsoft was doing a lot of work around raising education and awareness of security issues to ensure its programmers write secure code from the outset: with a number of high profile academics in its MSDN group and even degree modules on the subject at UK universities.

However, the idea that the likes of IBM, a big Linux proponent, can't afford to pay people seems ludicrous. McGrath claimed that IBM had barely 'handfuls' of developers working in the Open Source community.

He warned that: 'IBM is not doing Linux for philanthropic reasons. It's doing it for commercial gain. Every commercial company looks at its options. And Microsoft continues to work closely with IBM as a strategic partner.'

And McGrath claimed that Microsoft was doing more than its Linux counterparts to address legal as well as security risks.

He claimed Microsoft offers its customers 'the most comprehensive indemnity,' and that its open source rivals 'have significant caveats and clauses that many customers see as an unacceptable risk,' he said.