- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
A Brief History of Microsoft FUD
You've got to hand it to him: Steve Ballmer is a master of innuendo. In a recent interview, published in Forbes, he manages to say nothing and threaten everything: Quoting:Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. So, this time it's patents that will ensure the downfall of GNU/Linux and with it, the entire world of open source. But before hanging up your certified geek propeller-hat and retraining as a dental hygienist, you might want to consider the following brief history of Microsoft's use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) as a weapon against GNU/Linux. It's a story that goes back nearly a decade, and one that has evolved through various stages of corporate denial. 1997: It's not a threat When I was writing a feature about GNU/Linux for Wired magazine, I contacted Microsoft to find out their views on this new rival. At that time, they were so laid back about it, they were nearly falling over. In fact, GNU/Linux was such a negligible threat, they couldn't be bothered coming up with even a mild bit of FUD for me. They just said: "We have a very talented team of developers making sure NT is the most powerful, flexible, and easy-to-use operating system.” 1999: It's not very powerful By 1999, Microsoft's position that GNU/Linux wasn't a threat was no longer tenable. Articles started appearing in the technical press that not only dared to compare GNU/Linux with Microsoft's flagship Windows NT, but actually found it better. One, in a Ziff-Davis title called Sm@rt Reseller, for example, stated: “According the ZDLabs' results, each of the commercial Linux releases ate NT's lunch”. But help was at hand. In April 1999, a performance testing company called Mindcraft issued a press release headed “Mindcraft study shows Windows NT server outperforms Linux”. It then emerged that Mindcraft had been commissioned by Microsoft to carry out the study – the first, but not the last time it would adopt this tactic. A fierce argument between Mindcraft and the open source community ensued about whether the tests had been fair, and how to make them fairer. In fact, the end results of the re-run was not completely favorable to GNU/Linux, but something rather interesting happened. The open source community took the failures and used them to improve GNU/Linux to the point where it was indeed more powerful than Windows. By finding and drawing attention to free software's weak spots, Microsoft actually made it stronger. 2001: It's not very nice In the face of the Mindcraft fiasco, and the growing strength of GNU/Linux, Microsoft changed tack. Steve Ballmer was wheeled out to bad-mouth the opposition, as only he can. In 2000, he said: “Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it.” In 2001, talking to the Chicago Sun-Times, he expressed himself even more forcefully: “Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.” Powerful stuff. Unfortunately for the FUDmeisters at Microsoft, this kind of name-calling didn't go down too well with its intended audience. Even Microsoft's own research showed this, as revealed in one of the entertaining Halloween memos leaked to Eric Raymond. 2002: It's not very cheap Once again, a massive change of tactics was required. Having failed to convince people that free software was either broken or bad, Microsoft decided to “prove” that it actually cost more to use than Windows – the famous TCO, or Total Cost of Ownership, studies. To achieve this, it drew on the “facts” to be found in a number of white papers from various analysts, all of which, by an amazing coincidence, came up with the result that running GNU/Linux was indeed more expensive than using Windows. But it didn't take long for this story to unravel like all the others. First, it was not always clear whether Microsoft had commissioned the white papers that it liked to cite, or whether they were truly independent. This naturally tended to cast doubts on even those that were produced without Microsoft's input. Just as seriously, the TCO methodologies were often completely valueless, involving estimates of costs several years into the future, or the results were presented in a skewed fashion. When this became clear, people felt that they were being duped by Microsoft, and tended to discount the whole exercise. The final nail in the coffin of this ironically-named “Get The Facts” campaign from Microsoft is the recent appearance of yet another white paper, which provided cast-iron evidence that GNU/Linux's TCO was actually better than that of Windows (well, as cast-iron as any of these white papers ever are). It is no coincidence that this one was not commissioned by Microsoft, but by the Open Source Development Labs, who were showing that they could fight fire with fire. 2003: It's not legal 1.0 Since GNU/Linux could not be bested either technologically, morally or economically, Microsoft was forced to resort to the law. It chose to provide both direct and indirect support to SCO at a time when the latter had brought a lawsuit against IBM that – purely coincidentally – had begun to sow doubt in the minds of some people about the legality of the code in GNU/Linux. In many ways, this was the perfect FUD, since it didn't even originate from Microsoft. But to the company's chagrin, the SCO case has gone nowhere. All the bluster at the beginning has evaporated, leaving behind some increasingly annoyed judges. 2006: It's not legal 2.0 Since the indirect legal FUD failed, Microsoft has taken the last, desperate option it has available: to begin direct legal FUD. Hence Ballmer's cunningly veiled threats: he's not saying Microsoft will sue somebody in the GNU/Linux world over possible violations of intellectual property, it's just something that, well, he owes it to his shareholders (like Bill Gates and himself, presumably) to consider. But if Microsoft's track-record in the FUD stakes is anything to go by, it's not going to work – not least because it will pit Microsoft's Goliath against the David of GNU/Linux, in front of a crowd that always roots for the underdog. Ballmer's comments do indicate, however, that Microsoft has reached the end-game as far as FUD is concerned. After patents, there is nothing it hasn't already tried. So what will Microsoft do then? Simple: lose. Glyn Moody writes about open source at opendotdotdot |
This time it's patents that will ensure the downfall of GNU/Linux and with it, the entire world of open source. But before hanging up your certified geek propeller-hat and retraining as a dental hygienist, you might want to consider the following brief history of Microsoft's use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) as a weapon against GNU/Linux.
|
|
Comments (28)
great article
Don't underestimate MS's ability to use the law (patent, copyright, commerce, etc.) to stifle their competition.
You'll recall that when IBM dwarfed MS, MS was able to use the law to keep IBM from preinstalling OS/2 on thier own hardware. Now who dwarfs who?
Combine this will the nearly limitless ability of government officials to be bribed and you have quite a threat.
You'll recall that when IBM dwarfed MS, MS was able to use the law to keep IBM from preinstalling OS/2 on thier own hardware. Now who dwarfs who?
Combine this will the nearly limitless ability of government officials to be bribed and you have quite a threat.
@NoDough: it doesn't matter what MS does. I, and millions like me, will continue to use Linux.
> I, and millions like me, will continue to use Linux.
Exactly. Microsoft has lost us as customers, and we'll never return. We'll never again do business with a company we can't trust. Even if they should win against Linux, and manage make it illegal to use it, many people will simply break the law, and the remainder will switch to the BSD's, Apple, or some other competitor.
Exactly. Microsoft has lost us as customers, and we'll never return. We'll never again do business with a company we can't trust. Even if they should win against Linux, and manage make it illegal to use it, many people will simply break the law, and the remainder will switch to the BSD's, Apple, or some other competitor.
Some interesting projections on how phase It's not legal #2 could play out (with entertaining results) are in the comments streams attached to Slashdot stories http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/22/0516255 Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire, as http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178180&cid=14775376 "Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?", and attached to http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/1826219 Ballmer Won't Dismiss Idea of Suits Against Linux, as http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181434&cid=1500574... "OIN Owns Patents for technology Microsoft uses".
If the statements made in these comments are true, then basically, for Microsoft, patent litigation against Linux is a Roach Motel for their buggy-software business (they can check in but they won't live to check out).
>"You'll recall that when IBM dwarfed MS, MS was able to use the law to keep IBM from preinstalling OS/2 on thier own hardware. Now who dwarfs who?"
Microsoft used illegal OEM contracts to prevent OEMs from installing OS/2. Microsoft threatened to withhold licenses and then to charge full price for licenses to IBM, which it did not do to other "partners", if IBM pre-installed anything but MS Windows. What do you mean they were "able to use the law"? Microsoft used illegal leveraging of their monopoly. This is why they've been in court so much, even though they have yet to have their illegal leveraging significantly altered by courts.
Microsoft used illegal OEM contracts to prevent OEMs from installing OS/2. Microsoft threatened to withhold licenses and then to charge full price for licenses to IBM, which it did not do to other "partners", if IBM pre-installed anything but MS Windows. What do you mean they were "able to use the law"? Microsoft used illegal leveraging of their monopoly. This is why they've been in court so much, even though they have yet to have their illegal leveraging significantly altered by courts.
grouch: Yes, I was a little ambiguous. Allow me to be more specific.
Microsoft was able to use legal mechanisms, in this case software audits, to pressure IBM into making a decision to abandon pre-installs of OS/2 on IBM hardware.
More information here http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-c.pdf
Microsoft was able to use legal mechanisms, in this case software audits, to pressure IBM into making a decision to abandon pre-installs of OS/2 on IBM hardware.
More information here http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-c.pdf
800 pound gorilla
In the courts, it's sometimes not about who's right, but who can spend the most. Why should I not be afraid again?
That's because people are stupid ignorants. So yes, those who can convince with money finally win. The whole society loses.
> Why should I not be afraid again?
The penalties for patent infringment are essentially two fold: Financial penalties and injuncitons. I.E., you have to reimburse the patent holder for their loses, and you're prohibited from distributing the infringing product. Neither of these apply to users, and neither of them will be effective against Linux. The code is distributed around the world, on servers outside the jurisdiction of any single court. It will still be available to those who want it, even if an injunction is issued. Red Hat, Novell, Mandrake, and the other Linux distributors may have to worry about financial judgements, but even if Microsoft managed to shut down every major distributor; that wouldn't stop Debian, Gentoo, and the other non-commercial distributions. Since they don't make money from their activities, there's nothing for the court to take.
The penalties for patent infringment are essentially two fold: Financial penalties and injuncitons. I.E., you have to reimburse the patent holder for their loses, and you're prohibited from distributing the infringing product. Neither of these apply to users, and neither of them will be effective against Linux. The code is distributed around the world, on servers outside the jurisdiction of any single court. It will still be available to those who want it, even if an injunction is issued. Red Hat, Novell, Mandrake, and the other Linux distributors may have to worry about financial judgements, but even if Microsoft managed to shut down every major distributor; that wouldn't stop Debian, Gentoo, and the other non-commercial distributions. Since they don't make money from their activities, there's nothing for the court to take.
You're getting acknoweldged for unbias reporting?
You're all over the Internet with this story. I haven't seen slashdot yet, but everyone else seems fascinated with the factual reporting and lack of bias.
I have to study this style of yours. Hmmmm, it really makes me wonder.
I have to study this style of yours. Hmmmm, it really makes me wonder.
I tried to keep it as factual as possible - hence the links in the story. But it's interesting how, on Digg, at least, it's not factual enough for some. Clearly, I must try harder next time...
LOSE LOSE LOSE
I LOVE the idea of M$ finally falling before superior FOSS solutions. Desktop Linux may still have a good deal to improve on, but the back end is all there and in great shape. Can anyone comment on the viability of the patent case against linux? I cant imagine a federal judge ruling against linux on the grounds of "double click" implementation...
The real issue is legal costs. Microsoft has money to litigate and Linux doesn't have the staying power. It's not really a question of legality but of the full court press MS could run.
Wouldn't it be placed upon the community to let the entire thing be seen by the court of public opinion? Therein stands our only chance. The bully being caught beating up the little kid. Even MS couldn't withstand that...not for long.
I've spoken to an investigator in the AG's office in Austin. Basically, they don't have any money. The states join in when the Feds finally indict. So, they only get involved if the Feds do.
The Feds are probably not going after Microsoft. The could have done it already because MS was not in compliance with the existing settlement agreement.
No court of public opinion exists. Sorry, but to assert that MS is going down in one of those things someone would say is "in your dreams".
The Feds are probably not going after Microsoft. The could have done it already because MS was not in compliance with the existing settlement agreement.
No court of public opinion exists. Sorry, but to assert that MS is going down in one of those things someone would say is "in your dreams".
Tom: I think you are right about "in your dreams" with respect to the US in the short term at least. In the EU, on the other hand, they are skirting pretty close to the edge at present.
The Gandhi way
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
Unless you're Ruby, in which case it's:
- First they ignore you, - ... - ... - Then you win!
- First they ignore you, - ... - ... - Then you win!
No ruby:
5.times { puts "win" }
5.times { puts "win" }
Hey, quit picking on Microsoft.
:-) Knew that would catch your attention...
The only thing that scares Microsoft is the GPL, really. It's certainly not the community. They've been abusing community intelligence for years, but as you mentioned in another article, so are some who are using the phrase, 'Open Source'.
The only thing that scares Microsoft is the GPL, really. It's certainly not the community. They've been abusing community intelligence for years, but as you mentioned in another article, so are some who are using the phrase, 'Open Source'.
Ballmer : "There's no innovation out of linux"
" Ballmer said open source may have a role in the technology world, but it's not leading the way.
"There's no innovation that we've seen come out of -- at least Linux," Ballmer said Tuesday. " http://www.kgw.com/tech/stories/kgw_051006_tech_balmer_orego...
"There's no innovation that we've seen come out of -- at least Linux," Ballmer said Tuesday. " http://www.kgw.com/tech/stories/kgw_051006_tech_balmer_orego...
Yeah, it is funny to hear something like this from a manager who's
company has (with almost no exception) bought or outright stolen
all ideas (especially those ideas that are MS's cash cow).
Multics.
Multics.
Give it about 24 hours and let's see what Ballmer has to say about "innovation". As the kids say on my block, "I think we got something for his, uh,,,never mind...this is a family website. You can fill in the blank. ;-)
helios
helios
friend
friend
Get the fudge.
I have started a collection of articles to dispel the MS FUD on linux.
Please visit. http://getthefudge.com
If you have any interesting articles please email getthefudge (at) yahoo (dot) com
Thanks
Please visit. http://getthefudge.com
If you have any interesting articles please email getthefudge (at) yahoo (dot) com
Thanks
You're welcome to search our archives and link to articles.
I usually talk about at least one FUD article in the LXer Weekly Roundup as well.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
love that line - the thing the so-called experts don't get is that linux will always be here - it isn't going anywhere and it can't be bought and sold.
they can't fight that - periud!!