Monday, February 23, 2004

The Microsoft monoculture We've called Microsoft the only actual worldwide monopoly (or near monopoly). While the ubiquity of the Microsoft's operating system and office applications have made data exchange, training, and communication problems easier, they have also lead to massive problems. If oligopolies tend to get fat and lazy and actually impede innovation, monopolies are even in more danger of getting that way. Microsoft has long been expert in one thing beyond all others - combating potential disruption of its market position. Hundreds of software competitors have either been assimilated or, more often, had their ideas co-opted and reproduced in enough of a facsimile to avoid lawsuits yet crush competition. That's the fate of Apple Computer, Lotus, Netscape, RealNetworks, Borland, and many others who are now either tiny players or out of business entirely. Other innovations like Sun's Java, Palm's PalmOS, IBM's OS/2, and any number of office suites and applications have been subverted to one degree or another by Microsoft. At one time, it could be argued that Microsoft deserved to win because of its expert programming and its hunger to dominate. And the end user, it could be said, benefited in every way from reduction of complexity. Never mind the hardball tactics revealed in the Microsoft antitrust suit, that's what free markets are about, some argued. And clearly, Microsoft still has received no official punishment for its clearly predatory practices. But the effects of the monopoly are becoming clearer all the time. It's not just the high prices and lack of alternatives. And it's not just the rigor mortis in the operating system and the major programs that keep getting bigger and slower while adding little value to users. The big problem is security. Microsoft computers have become a security nightmare. And the reason, according to critic Dan Geer is the software monoculture (as documented in a Salon.com article, "Biology stirs Microsoft monoculture debate", 2/15/2004). The argument in short: In biology, species with little genetic variation - or monocultures -- are the most vulnerable to catastrophic epidemics. Species that share a single fatal flaw could be wiped out by a virus that could exploit that flaw. Genetic diversity increases the chances that at least some of the species will survive every attack. Geer was fired from his computer security job for articulating the problem (his company, atstake Inc., has Microsoft as a major client). The firing, for which Microsoft denies any responsibility, has given major impetus to the circulation of Geer's ideas in the security area. Of course, the biological analogies (like "computer viruses") are metaphors. But they as Microsoft continually fumbles with new weak points in its latest code, constantly offering code patches, and seeing hackers develop ever new ways to attack them, it has a persuasive power. Just ask the businesses that have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to the latest computer viruses and worms. Combine that with embarrassing leaks of operating system code and the endless, mind-spinning, Microsoft security bulletins. For big company, whose whole business is increasingly dependent on networks and servers, the stake is enormous. And even private users have to become security experts. It's notable that the relatively few users that use Macs and Linux machines rarely have these problems. They certainly have their weaknesses, but they are uninviting targets. Likewise, companies that use e-mail systems other than Microsoft's Outlook are safer than those that do. The danger may only be magnified if Microsoft manages to use its heft to determine the operating software standards for a whole raft of non-PC devices with imbedded computers, from telephones to televisions and beyond. The extension of Microsoft's monoculture as the world gets networked has grave security issues not just from pranksters but from terrorists as well. The solutions other than antitrust, which clearly has not worked, is more diversified software choices, or software that builds in some internal variation, according to experts. This will be neither simple nor inexpensive. In any case, the reign of the single worldwide monopoly is becoming an increasingly serious problem. 7:03:58 PM

comment []