On Jan 9, 1:34 pm, "Roger Wilco" <wi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Get to eat the yummy nymshifting WinTroll - Yum Yum
> This newsgroup is certainly the joke of the internet.
This newsgroup has a low signal to noise ratio, to be sure, but there
are many posters who provide valuable insight and thoughtful arguments
in favor of Linux. There are even many good and thoughtful arguments
against Linux, usually in favor of Microsoft. Many of these pro-
Microsoft arguments are similar to those we hear in corporate offices,
community organizations, and even government organizanios. Providing
rational and reasonable responses helps Linux advocates to address
these issues more effectively in these other environments.
[snip]
Some of the arguments you see - "From the Microsoft" point of view.
> "Microsoft is out to get us"
Microsoft feels that their rightful share of the entire IT market is
100 percent, and anything less is unacceptable. Anything that
threatens that 100% market share (or 99.9% if you'd like), is a threat
to Microsoft. These are all public statements made by Microsoft, in
addition to statements included in court exhibits made public domain
during court hearings.
The Hallowen documentst, the DOJ exhibits, the Ohio vs Microsoft
exhibits, and other court exhibits which were not sealed, show a
consistent pattern. Microsoft considers Linux, Unix, Mac, and at one
time, OS/2, to be a direct threat to Microsoft's market domination.
Mac OS/X is produced by Apple, and Apple has not shown any interest in
Licensing it to OEMs such as Dell, HP, Acer, or Lenovo. As a result,
Apple's ability to threaten Windows is limited by their capacity to
produce Mac hardware.
Solaris has similar issues. Sun primarily supports Sun hardware only,
and doesn't have any intention of licensing Solaris to the other major
OEMs.
Linux on the other hand, will run on about 90% of the PCs made in the
last 10 years. Furthermore, even when Microsoft has tried to specify
"Linux Hostile" components such as DirectX-10 Video cards, the OEMs
seem to find that there is more demand, and more profit, for "Linux
Friendly" or "Linux Ready" machines. This makes Linux a very real
threat to Microsoft.
Linux alone isn't the real threat. Linux combined with Open Source
Software which runs not only on Linux, but also on Windows, has become
a bigger threat. FireFox, OpenOffice, and other OSS applications are
putting pressure on Microsoft's pricing and licensing. Microsoft is
very concerned about the adoption of Java, FireFox, OpenOffice, and
other multiplatform applications that run on Linux and Mac as well as
Windows, because these applications and middleware components make the
possibility of running Linux as the primary operating system a very
real possibility.
Microsoft is also very concerned at how easy it is to now get and run
Linux. Live-CD, Live-DVD, USB drives or thumb drives, VMWare player,
appliances, desktop virtualization, and dual-boot configurations. All
of these make it so much easier for even the most cautious Windows
users to take Linux out for a "test drive". This is making it much
harder for Microsoft to misrepresent Linux as a "Command line only"
system, or "Primitive User Interface". Even worse, many of those who
have previewed Linux, see the similarities between GNOME and Vista,
and GNOME was first.
The big problem for Microsoft is that there may come a point where
OEMs are unwilling to exclude Linux from the marketplace. This is
even more likely to happen if Apple continues to make huge growth in
volume and profits quarter after quarter, while the PC divisions of
Dell, HP, Acer, and Lenovo subsidize their PC losses.
E-Machines was aquired by Gateway. Gateway was bleeding red ink so
bad they dropped to just over $1/share, before ACER bought them out.
IBM sold off the PC division to Lenovo, because it was losing so much
money.
Dell had to subsidize their PC market with HDTV screens.
HP had to subsidise their PC market with Printers, Consulting, and
Server revenue.
Each new release of Windows has traditionally meant layoffs, often
termed "downsizing', "right-sizing", and other euphemisms, to pay the
Microsoft upgrade bill. After XP, the COO, CFO, and Lines of Business
managers got much more interested in the IT budget, and have been
pushing back against moves for more company-wide job cuts to fund
upgrades to Microsoft's new systems.
Microsoft has good reason to be concerned about Linux. They view even
a minor "leak" of Linux into the retail floor, into visible desktop
locations, and into other key markets, as the equivalent of a leak in
the dam. They feel that they must "Win against Linux at All Costs" to
prevent the dam from bursting.
> "Microsoft is bribing the govt in China to hurt linux"
There have already been a number of memos from top Microsoft
executives telling the marketing department that they should "Win
against Linux at all costs". Microsoft has deep pockets, including
huge cash hordes and short-term investments. Microsoft's annual
revenues are as big as the gross domestic product of many countries.
There is also the Gates Foundation, which operates independently of
Microsoft, but funds a lot of good will projects like innoculating
children against common diseases, and anti-malaria drugs, to prevent
or delay the deaths of up to 250 million people a year.
Microsoft was a huge company for almost 20 years, yet they didn't give
much of anything to any form of charity. About the biggest extent of
their generousity was to offer deep discounts on Windows licenses (but
the cash still went in Microsoft's direction).
Bill Gates has been the richest man in the world for almost 2 decades
as well, yet he gave nothing to charities or humanitarian efforts
until he got a huge tax-free dividend that he had to donate to charity
to avoid Alternative Minimum Tax on his increased net worth.
It's possible that the Gates Foundation really is the result of Bill
and/or Melinda having a transformation as a result of doing Landmark's
Self Expression and Leadership program, but there are so many
statements which still reflect the "Old Bill". On the other hand,
this may be because Bill has commitments to the success of Microsoft,
and he knows what he has to do to make sure that Microsoft is
successful.
Remember. If Linux/OSS only captures 10% of Microsoft's OEM revenue,
and 10% of Microsoft's Corporate revenue, and Microsoft can't make up
for that loss of revenue through other channels like the Entertainment
Division, Microsoft's stock could lose 20-25% of it's value in terms
of stock price. This would make institutional investors very
nervious, and might even trigger a divestature of their holdings.
Linux could adversely affect Microsoft's revenues in two ways. It
could became leverage in negotiations, forcing Microsoft to take lower
prices, more flexible license terms, and more flexibility in
configuration (including allowing OEMS to install Linux or support
desktop virtualization). It could also impact Microsoft's unit
volumes, maining that Microsoft calls the bluff, and finds out that it
is not a bluff. Suddenly corporate revenues and support contract
revenues would be impacted as customers switch to Linux and/or OSS and/
or ODF instead of continuing to pay their tribute to Microsoft.
> "Intel is trying to sabatoge linux"
Intel support Linux, but it's not their premium product. Linux
normally doesn't use the graphics features of the Pentium, and uses
the Celeron chip instead. Intel also supports Linux on it's Centrino
chips, including Dual-Core and 64 bit modes.
On the other hand, AMD is also very aggressively supporting LInux.
When the AMD/64 chips came out, Windows couldn't utilize the extra
horsepower, but LInux could. Linux created a substantial demand for
AMD 64 workstations and laptops.
> "The recording studios are all against linux"
Microsoft has been courting the MPAA and RIAA, scaring them into
thinking that Linux and OSS would do to them, what it would do to
Windows and Office.
Ironically, just the opposite has turned out to be the case. Tivo,
DVRs, and DVD decoders for Linux have led to public standards which
protect the publisher's intellectual property from large-scale
pirates, and at the same time, provide economically viable players for
a much wider market.
> "The tv, radio and movie studios are anti-linux"
The big problem here is that networks often have to compete against
themselves. If they put in a "cheap and boring" show on a night that
isn't a "hot market", they can find that ratings are even worse,
because people are watching the "peak night" shows they taped off
their Tivo. Of course, the big 3 networks have also hated Video
Cassette recorders, cable TV, and digital cable.
On the flip side, Linux is used to host "pay-per-view" programming,
and has made it possible for these same studios to collect "pure
royalties" without the costs of distribution, warehousing, and retail
shelf maintenance, and they can offer a much wider spectrum of
movies. When Paramount can collect $4.95 for a movie that didn't win
any Oscars, didn't win Golden Globes, and was first screened 30 years
ago, it's a "pure win" for them.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a $4 billion advertising budget.
They also use their brand name to influence placement and content of
another $40 billion in advertising. This buys a lot of favorable
coverage for Microsoft, and a lot of negative coverage of it's
competitors, especially those who do not buy $1 billion or more in
advertising.
> "The BBC is anti linux"
I'm not familiar with the BBC other than what I see on WNET and the
BBC cable channel. I can't say that I've seen extreme bias of any
kind. I do find that the BBC covers lots of stories that the USA
media wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, because of the fallout of
upsetting major advertisers.
> "Even linux (Suse, TurboLinux, etc) are against linux"
Microsoft is claiming that Linux violates their patents, but won't say
which patents they are. Which almost automatically proves that they
were intuitively derived, or worse, that Microsoft actually stole the
technology from Linux and then filed the patent applicationt without
mentioning the OSS prior art.
At the same time, Microsoft has lost a number of "squatter" lawsuits
that they shouldn't have lost, but the Jury was sympathetic to the
defendent.
Microsoft seems to be interested in creating a larger "patent
umbrella" that reduces the chance of them being sued by some OSS
developer for code that was similar to something that Microsoft has
been using.
> "nVidia is anti-linux"
nVidia is actually a very aggressive supporter of Linux, and has a
number of OpenGL boards that provide excellent 3D graphics
capabilities for LInux. On the other hand, they publish their high-
end 3D drivers as binary-only modules, which are called by an OSS Plug-
n-Play probe.
Many Linux purists would prefer to see all drivers and software
offered exclusively in source code format, but many vendors are not
willing to publish the source code to strategic products that help
them differentiate themselves in the general marketplace.
> "Bill Gates foundation is really an anti-linux organization."
Bill Gates is the Chairman of Microsoft. His personal fortune is
directly tied to the stock price of Microsoft. Bill may be
altruistic, but he isn't crazy. He's not going to funnel $millions or
$billions in Gates Foundation funds into a project that will
ultimately cause the price of Microsoft stock to drop 50% or more in a
matter of weeks, without warning.
If Dick Chaney still had huge holdings in Haliburton, such that 50% or
more of his total net worth depended on the stock price of Haliburton,
he would be nuts to do something that would deliberately cause the
stock price of Haliburton to drop 50%. Would it make sense for him to
take actions which would help Haliburton's competitors?
> "The ISO committee has been bribed by MS and is now anti-linux"
Microsoft sees ODF as a huge threat to Microsoft Office. It's a
pretty accurate view, since Microsoft does not have an ODF engine in
Office, and if ODF is adopted by the industry as a standard, it would
reduce demand for Microsoft Office.
Microsoft proposed an alternative to ODF - OOXML, but it was tightly
integrated to the Microsoft Office engine and Microsoft's proprietary
libraries, code, and formats. When the ISO reviewed the standard, it
became pretty obvious that the standard was incomplete, so Microsoft
encouraged MSDN partner companies to pay the membership fee and vote
for OOXML.
> "Linux people (De La Garza) are turning against us."
Michael De Icaza had been working on a collaboration system which was
intended to be an Outlook work-alike. When Microsoft introduced C#
and .NET, the work-alike would have to support these new protocols and
standards. Microsoft wanted the industry to adopt C# as an
alternative to Java, by claiming that C# was a "multiplatform"
language like Java. Microsoft published the C# specification, and de
Icaza was able to write a parser that generated and parsed the virtual
machine code called Mono. Microsoft also provided a subset (about
20%) of the .NET specifications, most of which had already been
published and/or was part of other published standards (XML, SOAP,
WSDL). De Icaza was eventually able to provide GUI interfaces to a
number of .NET objects, but even today, he would tell you there is
still a huge gap between .NET and Mono.
> "Boycottnovell.com, boycott-this.com, boycott-that.com, they are all out to
> get us."
There are extremists in the Linux community, just like any other
organization. Some of these people are "GNU Purists" who want
everything to be based exclusively on GPL licensed code, and force
every line of code used on any Linux library or application, to
publish their code. Fortunately they are more of the "fringe"
minority, and they have very little economic backing.
There are legitimate concerns that one distributor or another will try
to proclaim "ownership" of Linux and it's related OSS. At any given
time, there is a "Top 10" distributions, most of which are
commercially viable as well. When an OEM blesses one distribution
over another, the others in the top 10 tend to try to paint the top
players as a threat to the free market competition that has been the
heart of the growth of Linux.
> "Apple is anti-linux"
Apple hardware runs Linux very nicely. At the same time, Apple makes
a UNIX system which supports numerous OSS applications typically
associated with Linux.
Personally, I love the Apple commercials because everything that is
said about the MAC can also be said about Linux. In effect, an ad for
Mac is an ad for Linux as well. When someone says "I'd rather have a
Mac", they are often a hair's breadth from installing Linux on the PC
they already own.
> "All the newspapers and media are controlled by MS and are anti-linux"
Microsoft controls a lot of advertizing. They have their own $4
billion/year budget. They also have trademarks and logos which are
used by Dell, Lenovo, HP, as well as many software companies. This
gives them placement and content control over about $40 billion in
advertising revenue.
When Microsoft puts out major ads on major magazines, television
shows, and media web sites, it's not because they are trying to sell
YOU a copy of Microsoft software. If you've ever tried to call
Microsoft for support, you will find out within a few seconds that you
are NOT a Microsoft customer. You buy the PC from the OEM, but the
OEM buys the software from Microsoft.
Microsoft buys all of that advertizing to buy good press. The press
doesn't have to sacrifice it's credibility, it just has to be less
enthusiastic in it's endorsement of Linux, and more enthusiastic in
it's coverage of Microsoft's products.
Microsoft also likes to "leak" information about their next system.
In many cases, the next system doesn't even exist yet, there might not
even be prototype code, but announcing features offered by competitors
like Solaris, OS/X, and LInux, can often generate positive coverage
that doesn't ask too many questions, and doesn't remind readers of the
10 year wait for "NT, a better UNIX than UNIX", or the 5 year wait for
Longhorn/Vista. The advertising also tends to make the list of
features promised but not delivered, disappear as well.
Keep in mind that a 30 second ad on a minor cable channel can cost
$200,000. A full page ad in a major magazine can cost $200,000. A
reporter usually makes about $30-50,000 per year. An editor makes
about $75,000 per year. Control of $44 billion would be enough to buy
220,000 pages or 220,000 30 second spots (about 1800 hours). Assuming
a 50/50 split, you can see why this might have an impact on these
media companies.
Bill Gates is also close friends with Rupert Murdock. Microsoft also
has close ties to General Electric's NBC divisions, including a 25%
stake in MSNBC, as well as smaller stakes in CNBC and other NBC
branches.
> "Everyone out there (Gartner, etc) are controlled by MS and are anti-linux"
Microsoft is very possessive about it's information. Microsoft's
licenses explicitly require that Microsoft give prior written approval
before publishing any benchmarks. Microsoft considers any comparison
between any Microsoft product and ANY Microsoft competitor product, to
be a benchmark.
Gartner and other research firms also depend on Microsoft for key
statistics such as unit volumes, revenue levels, and other market
indicators and trends. SEC filings generally contain consolidated
numbers which are often strategically combined to blend numbers that
might be embarrassing if they were itemized.
The point is that to use any of this information, Microsoft has to
give written approval before it is published. Often, surveys and
benchmarks are submitted for approval, and Microsoft suggests some
"Rewrites". There are lots of different ways to swizzled statistics
and benchmarks to give a more "favorable" impression. Microsoft can't
actually lie, that would be fraud, but they can pick the numbers to be
used as the "Lead" of the story.
Some common ways to get a better looking result.
- Compare License Revenues, since Microsoft licenses cost
significantly more than Linux licenses (most of which are free), and
excluding support revenue (where most Linux revenue comes from),
Microsoft can claim a much bigger percentage of the market.
- Compare Unit Volumes based on "As Licensed" by the OEMs. If Dell,
HP, Lenovo, and Gateway ship 99.9% of their PCs with Windows, then
that's the market share to be attributed to Linux. The fact that most
Linux installs are done by end-users can either be buried in the
middle of the document, or could be ignored completely.
- Run the tests using Microsofts configurations and settings. If
Microsoft really doesn't like the benchmark results, they can request
that you re-run the test with different conditions. Microsoft studied
the Mindcraft benchmarks published in 1998 for a few months before
they figured out that Linux could be forced into a bottleneck by using
a special configuration. They had Mindcraft run the benchmarks with 4
processors, 4 ethernet cards, and 4 RAID controllers. That version of
Linux relied on a single spinlock, which meant that Linux was making
processes wait for services that had already been completed. The
result was that Windows appeared 50% faster. What is interesting is
that Windows should have been 4 times faster, since Linux was
"holding" 75% of the time.
The spinlock problem was fixed in a subsequent version of Linux, and
Microsoft has not permitted the publication of any similar benchmarks
since then.
Microsoft's actions are completely understandable. If customers are
willing to accept these "prior written approval" terms as part of
their copyright license, it makes perfect sense to put the term in
there. At the same time, since the customers have accepted these
terms, it only makes sense that Microsoft would want to revise or
spend a long time reviewing benchmarks they didn't like.
> What a bunch of miserable paranoid freaks you all are.
In the Drug Rehab, they say "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't
mean that they are not out to get you. It was good advice. Many owed
money to dealers. Many had committed crimes. Many had people who
WERE out to get them. Making sure they understood this helped them
avoid the mistake of assuming that they were fine, going back to the
dealer, the gang, or the scene of their crime, and assuming that they
were "safe".
Microsoft has $50 billion in annual revenue, less than 10% goes into
technical R&D for Operating Systems and Office. On the other hand,
they have $4 billion in advertizing. $2 billion in legal costs, and
$2 billion in settlements. Most of this is to protect their Windows
monopoly from competitors like Linux and OSS.
> No wonder your little OS only has 0.6% marketshare
> despite being free for over 10 years.
Are you completely sure of that? If there is a bear in the bushes,
an you can't see it, or hear it, does that mean that it's not there?
Do you really want to wait until it is biting and clawing into your
legs or throat before you decide it's really there?
Microsoft has some of the best market research in the industry. They
can peek inside the machines and see exactly what software is being
run on every machine. They have several sites that count persistent
cookies, instead of DHCP IP addresses. They have a very accurate
count that they aren't sharing.
What we do know is that for the last 10 years, Linux has been "enemy
number one" for Microsoft. When they testified under oath that Linux
had 17% of the desktop market, they were facing perjury charges, yet
the prosecutors did not challenge these statements.
Microsoft is acutely aware that Linux is spreading like a computer
virus. Cygwin, Live-CDs, Live-DVDs, desktop virtualization, and
remote desktop access has put Linux on lots of desktops. Microsoft
has been grabbing as many IP addresses as they can get, so that they
can flip them on DHCP. Microsoft has been focusing on "As Shipped"
volumes, and only as shipped by the major US manufacturers like Dell,
HP, and Gateway.
Microsoft also knows that when that information becomes public (not
if), their stock price could be adversely affected. OEMs might want
better terms. Corporate customers might want better terms. Both OEMs
and Corporations could demand terms that allow them to use desktop
virtualization to install both Linux AND Windows on the same machine,
with Windows taking a secondary role.
Microsoft may even have to license their own "appliances" rather than
the core operating system, because corporate and OEM customers might
want Linux as the primary operating system.
The bigger problem is that they might not want Vista. It's too slow,
too resource hungry, and doesn't provide enough additional value
compared to Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
Microsoft made a huge gamble and tried to force Linux off the Vista
desktop. The strategy backfired, and now Microsoft has had to
creatively market XP as "Vista Business Edition downgrade option" in
order to keep their Vista numbers looking good. Perhaps Microsoft is
trying to avoid an SEC investigation for these numbers.
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
|
|
