We all know Microsoft views Linux as a serious threat and will do just about anything to discourage its use. But why would application vendors who actually face competition from Microsoft help it out in this regard? That's what one reader was wondering after discovering that his customers could no longer use a Linux server with their favorite accounting packages. "I have two clients using multi-user network acco We all know Microsoft views Linux as a serious threat and will do just about anything to discourage its use. But why would application vendors who actually face competition from Microsoft help it out in this regard? That’s what one reader was wondering after discovering that his customers could no longer use a Linux server with their favorite accounting packages.“I have two clients using multi-user network accounting packages,” the reader wrote. “One uses Quickbooks, the other uses Peachtree. In both cases upgrades to newer versions of each accounting package required I set up either a peer system or a dedicated server with Windows, and move away from the Linux servers I’d set up for both. The reason? Both Intuit and Sage Software now use .NET to develop these applications, and both are, according to their support staff, complying with Microsoft standards for their backend database components — components which won’t work on non-Microsoft network servers.”The reader first became aware of the problem when Intuit’s sunset policies forced one of his customers to upgrade their version of Quickbooks. “One client had been using Quickbooks Pro 2003 for 5 users when they started having problems with database corruption,” the reader wrote. “When I called tech support for them, I was told Intuit no longer supports QB Pro 2003. In order to get the accounting database back up, my client would have to upgrade to QB Pro 2006. Initially I didn’t see a problem with this. Their 2003 worked fine with the data on the Linux server (SUSE 9.3). However, when I started installing 2006, I saw the new requirements on the side of the box stating the data now had to reside on a Windows server, either a peer-to-peer arrangement, or a dedicated Windows 2003 Server system. In this case, I had to install the software on the newest system and reconfigure the network mappings accordingly.” Another of the reader’s customers was using Sage’s Peachtree. “The client was told by Peachtree that the new payroll software wouldn’t work with Peachtree Complete Accounting 2004,” the reader wrote. ” So, they purchased the upgrade to 2007. Again, the previous version had no problems with the data on their Linux server (SUSE 9.1), but now require a Windows server, either peer-to-peer or a dedicated Windows server 2003. It also uses .NET technology and must install server components on the machine where the data will reside. This client had to purchase a new system — it was less expensive to buy a new system than to buy a copy of Windows XP Pro and have me install and configure it on the Linux box. And since the Linux box’s major purpose was to provide file services for their accounting package and documents, there really isn’t a reason to maintain two servers.”The upshot is the reader’s clients first had to upgrade their accounting package and then had to spend extra money to continue using it. “In both cases the software developers are forcing my clients to use server software we had decided would be unnecessary and would add to their costs,” the reader wrote. “In both cases my clients had to pay additional billable hours to my company to handle the additional time spent to setup and configure new servers and either remove or re-task the perfectly good Linux servers. Both companies needed little maintenance on the Linux server boxes. Further, the servers didn’t need the additional expenditures for security software for virus and spyware attacks. So, in addition to needing these new systems, they need to acquire, install, configure, and maintain security software, and maintenance will go up as Windows requires more maintenance than does the Linux OS. This means more billable hours for me, but unhappy clients.”The reader believes that Microsoft is behind this. “I think this is a calculated move by Microsoft to stop Linux’s increasing market share in the server market, and help increase their own,” the reader wrote. “I think the developers are enabling this behavior, and in fact may be called co-conspirators in assisting Microsoft in their attacks against non-Windows server systems. I find this outrageous behavior by the developers and have already informed them of my and my clients’ displeasure in forcing them to make outlays for something they didn’t need, for server software they didn’t want, and for the additional outlays that lay for my clients in the future. These particular clients have already had to make the move. I will be informing my other clients we need to discuss, with their accountants, their accounting needs for the future and get both the clients and the accountants to move to other accounting packages which will work with Linux servers and perhaps even Linux workstations. As far as I’m concerned, neither Intuit nor Sage Software deserve further business until they support Linux at the very least on servers, but should start developing for Linux on the desktop.” Is this one more Redmond conspiracy against Linux, or is something else going on here? No doubt Microsoft is delighted with the way this works out, but what I don’t understand is why Intuit and Sage would both go along with it. Why would two major application vendors, who compete against each other and also face a threat from Microsoft in that space, restrict their customers’ choices to the benefit of Redmond? If you know the answer to that one, give the Gripe Line a call at 1 888 875-7916, or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.Read and post comments about this story here. Technology Industry