Rockin' on without Microsoft
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
Rockin' on without Microsoft
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie
Ball,
the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations
of artists
ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica.
But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie
Ball has also gained
notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and
still lived to tell
the tale.
In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent
audit at the San
Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed
copies of
programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by
then, the BSA, a
trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for
major business
software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it
in regional ads
warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.
Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft
products
out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have
to buy 10,000
abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade
show. "We won't
do business with someone who treats us poorly."
Ball's IT crew settled on a
potpourri of open-source
software--Red Hat's version of
Linux, the OpenOffice office
suite, Mozilla's Web
browser--plus a few proprietary
applications that couldn't be
duplicated by open source. Ball,
whose father, Ernie, founded the
company, says the transition was
a breeze, and since then he's
been happy to extol the virtues of
open-source software to anyone
who asks. He spoke with CNET
News.com about his experience.
Q: Can you start by giving us a brief rundown of how you became an open-source
advocate?
A: I became an open-source guy because we're a privately owned company,
a family
business that's been around for 30 years, making products and being a good
member of
society. We've never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills.
And one day I
got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software
license
compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software.
But my lawyer
told me it could be pretty bad.
The BSA had a program back then called "Nail Your Boss," where they encouraged
disgruntled employees to report on their company...and that's what happened
to us.
Anyways, they basically shut us down...We were out of compliance I figure
by about 8
percent (out of 72 desktops).
How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC,
so they get one
and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't
wipe the hard
drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of
software isn't being used,
it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive. What I really thought
is that you ought to treat
people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the
way Microsoft dealt
with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft
guy.
Did you want to settle?
Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an
owner thinks.
They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look
bad.
There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved
to have fought it.
But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they
got is that I
automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's
ever
challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to
cost our side a
quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side,
too, figure at least
half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your
business. What most
people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their
licenses. And they
do that no matter what the license program turns into.
What happened after the auditors showed up?
It was just negotiation between lawyers back and forth. And while that
was going on, that's
when I vowed I was never going to use another one of their products. But
I've got to tell
you, I couldn't have built my business without Microsoft, so I thank them.
Now that I'm not
so bitter, I'm glad I'm in the position I'm in. They made that possible,
and I thank them.
So it was the publicity more than the audit itself that got you riled?
Nobody likes to be made an example of, but especially in the name of commerce.
They
were using me to sell software, and I just didn't think that was right.
Call me first if you
think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's
there. They
went right for the gut...I think it was because it was a new (geographical)
area for them,
and we're the No. 1 manufacturer in the county, so why not go after us?
So what did swearing off Microsoft entail?
We looked at all the alternatives. We looked at Apple, but that's owned
in part by
Microsoft. (Editor's note: Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in
1997.) We just
looked around. We looked at Sun's Sun Ray systems. We looked at a lot of
things. And it
just came back to Linux, and Red Hat in particular, was a good solution.
So what kind of Linux setup do you have?
You know what, I'm not the IT guy. I make the business decisions. All I
know is we're
running Red Hat with Open Office and Mozilla and Evolution and the basic
stuff.
We were creating the cocktail that people are guzzling
down today, but we had to find it and put it together on our
own. It's so funny--in three and half years, we went from
being these idiots that were thinking emotionally rather than
businesslike...to now we're smart and talking to tech guys. I
know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source,
and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more
money
because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software. One of the
great things is
that we're able to run a poor man's thin client by using old computers
we weren't using
before because it couldn't handle Windows 2000. They work fine with the
software we
have now.
How has the transition gone?
It's the funniest thing--we're using it for e-mail client/server, spreadsheets
and word
processing. It's like working in Windows. One of the analysts said it costs
$1,250 per
person to change over to open source. It wasn't anywhere near that for
us. I'm reluctant to
give actual numbers. I can give any number I want to support my position,
and so can the
other guy. But I'll tell you, I'm not paying any per-seat license. I'm
not buying any new
computers. When we need something, we have white box systems we put together
ourselves. It doesn't need to be much of a system for most of what we do.
But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you
start
adding up service, support, etc.
What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think
that's
propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have
'em. How about
when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner
of the building
to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's
server-based.
There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst
guys can say
whatever they want.
The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch
of stuff on people's
desktops they don't need to do their job, chances are they're going to
use it. I don't have
that problem. If all you need is word processing, that's all you're going
to have on your
desktop, a word processor. It's not going to have Paint or PowerPoint.
I tell you what, our
hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser. For
somebody
whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do
they need a Web
browser? The idea that if you have 2,000 terminals they all have to have
a Web browser,
that's crazy. It just creates distractions.
Have you heard anything from Microsoft since you started speaking out about
them?
I got an apology today from a wants-to-be-anonymous Microsoft employee
who heard me
talk. He asked me if anyone ever apologized, because what happened to me
sounded
pretty rough to him, and I told him no. He said, "Well, I am. But we're
nice guys." I'm sure
they are. When a machine gets too big, it doesn't know when it's stepping
on ants. But
every once in a while, you step on a red ant.
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel
to be a
technology guru, as well?
I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It
shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I
switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because
the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without
Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without
Microsoft is a story.
It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your
organization and
then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization.
We're
progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that
I'm not sending
my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm
speaking to a
standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a
different piece of
software--that's hysterical.
You've pretty much gotten by with off-the-shelf software. Was it tough
to find
everything you needed in the open-source world?
Yeah, there are some things that are tough to find, like payroll software.
We found
something, and it works well. But the developers need to start writing
the real-world
applications people need to run a business...engineering, art and design
tools, that kind of
stuff...They're all trying to build servers that already exist and do a
whole bunch of stuff
that's already out there...I think there's a lot of room to not just create
an alternative to
Microsoft but really take the next step and do something new.
Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm taking
it off that system. I
just don't like the way it's being handled. I feel like I'm being threatened
again.
They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn't
mention it. But I
don't like how they're doing it. What they're doing is casting a shadow
over the whole
Linux community. Look, when you've got Windows 98 not being supported,
NT not being
supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a decision maker in the
IT field, you need
to be able to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be
supported. It's a
major consideration when you're making those decisions.
What if SCO wins?
There are too many what-ifs. What if they lose? What if IBM buys them?
I really don't
know, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can't believe
somebody really
wants to claim ownership of Linux...it's not going to make me think twice.
You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think
there's any such thing
as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it. How
much of a cost
depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you
about all the
support calls and service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked
in my office? I can
find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure
the answer is
none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as Windows. And I don't
have to buy
new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the
old one.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they
care about me?
If they cared about me, they wouldn't have approached me the way they did
in the first
place...And I'm glad they didn't try to get me back. I thank them for opening
my eyes,
because I'm definitely money ahead now and I'm definitely just as productive,
and I don't
have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.