Posted on 05/17/2007 6:38:27 AM PDT by ShadowAce
How is an untouchable superpower defeated? In many cases, it foolishly engages itself in an unwinnable war and simply consumes itself.
Microsoft, threatened by the encroachment of competition from open source, has long waged a detached propaganda war against free software and in particular Linux, but has recently escalated its conflict into a full blown attack. Here's what's happening, and why it will greatly accelerate the company's undoing.
Bill Gates' Infatuation With Software.
Back in the dawn of desktop computing, Bill Gates led the ideology that software was going to be the sole currency of the new economy. Throughout the 80s and 90s, Gates led Microsoft with the goal of making PC hardware a simple commodity, leaving software the main source of value and profits in the industry.
Microsoft's success in installing itself as a wide but shallow layer in the PC industry helped the company earn a steady increase of fantastical profits while its PC hardware partners struggled through boom and bust cycles. Gates seemed to know where the real money was in PCs: software.
For many years now, Gates has described his vision of the future as a world where customers will subscribe to Microsoft's software and automatically pay to use it at regular intervals, rather than buying retail boxes that can only claim an upgrade fee when there is an actual upgrade delivered.
Three Perspectives on the Software Business.
Gates' efforts to build a world exclusively ruled by proprietary software antagonized two camps of alternative opinions. The first differing viewpoint is presented by Free and Open Source Software, a general movement to develop shared software resources that others can use, adapt, and improve upon.
FOSS developers make a business case for sharing the work to develop software products, with the goal of producing high quality, interoperable tools that can be used by anyone at no cost. In the world of FOSS, software is a just a lubricant on the machinery of business.
A third perspective on software development originated with hardware makers. Companies like Apple, Cisco, IBM, and Sun all originally developed their own software. In most cases, it was not to directly market the software like Microsoft, but rather to play a supporting but critical role in selling their hardware.
In Apple's case, while it invested millions in developing Mac software, it only really used that software to sell its Mac hardware. For years, Apple didn't make much of an effort to sell its software at all; it was, in the manner of FOSS development, simply using software as a lubricant for its hardware sales.
Bizarre Love Triangle.
These three approaches to software development resulted in the development of today's triangle of desktop operating systems:
The GNU/Linux community built an alternative to Microsoft's commercial software for PCs; in doing so, they grew dependent upon the PC manufacturers who themselves were dependent upon Microsoft.
The result is that everything Linux can accomplish is at least indirectly tied to Microsoft. That's why Palladium, Microsoft's effort to lock down the PC to only run “approved software,” struck fear into the FOSS world.
Microsoft leads the PC world and can take in in dangerous directions; it most certainly does not want to be supplanted in the PC realm, and has vigorously worked to kill encroaching competitors who tried, from DR-DOS to IBM’s OS/2 to BeOS to NeXTSTEP to today's Linux.
By the mid 90s, Apple ended up as the only other significant, independent commercial desktop platform remaining. That put Apple in a unique position: it developed its own operating system software, so unlike other PC manufacturers, it was not beholden to Microsoft; unlike Microsoft, Apple did not really make any money from direct sales of its software.
I Love To Hate You.
Three very different positions resulting from the three different perspectives on software make for some interesting relationships between them.
Microsoft already sits on the majority of the market, and operates a high volume, low profit software licensing business model in direct contention with free software development.
Apple's low volume, high profit integrated hardware business model serves to distance Linux and Macs from being direct competitors.
The Iron Curtains of Microsoft.
Any new PC territory claimed by FOSS means less market share for Windows; a even a small but a significant decrease in Microsoft's holdings would severely weaken its monopoly position, forcing it to justify the expense of its software and directly compete in a difficult, multi-front battle.
Apple isn't threatened by a competitive marketplace, because it has little to lose and lots to gain. Few of its customers--who have gone out of their way to use Macs for their integration and polish--are suddenly going to be tempted to roll their own solutions with Linux or choose to return to using Windows PCs.
Similarly, FOSS developers are not concerned about losing customers to commercial platforms, because nobody is being held hostage to use Linux against their will either.
That has prompted Microsoft to erect iron curtains in its information war against competing alternatives. It must prevent its OEMs from doing business with other vendors, it must warn its Enterprise users of the fearsome dangers of using other platforms, and it must inextricably link its desktop users' applications, games, media and files to Windows so they can't ever leave.
The Changing Tide.
These circumstances have been in place for well over half a decade with little obvious movement in market share. Microsoft has maintained its monopoly position, FOSS has struggled to make any inroads on the desktop, and Apple has remained in a small minority position. Things under the surface have changed dramatically however.
Among them is the fact that Apple has partnered with open source in key areas where its own interests align with FOSS developers.
As a commercial developer with a significant installed base of customers in key markets, Apple's support for open alternatives rather than the de facto, proprietary standards pushed by Microsoft has helped to support the position of resistance incited by FOSS--and in particular Linux--users pushing for open interoperability.
A few key examples are Apple's support for:
The better Apple's products work with other systems, the more attractive its products will be. That's why the company also works to build interoperability with closed and proprietary standards that are entrenched in the market, including Microsoft's Active Directory service.
Microsoft is also growing to recognize the value of interoperability and open standards. Parts of the company have released technologies to open standards bodies, and Microsoft employees report that there is a new push to embrace standards-based development. This is due in part to the fact that development using open standards simply makes business sense.
Other hardware makers in a position similar to Apple, including Cisco, IBM, and Sun, have also worked to incorporate FOSS, open their own software, and work to use interoperable standards. These companies were all once known for hoarding their proprietary software away as secrets that needed to be protected, and for resisting outside ideas as shunned, “Not Invented Here” foreign developments. Things change.
FOSS Reevaluates Microsoft with .Net and Mono.
As the stalwart champion of closed, proprietary software, Microsoft has long accumulated a reputation as a planet inhospitable to any form of FOSS life forms. However, recent rumblings of change have suggested that a new world of interoperability is afoot, and that Microsoft may actually take the lead in launching new open standards.
One example is .Net, a general marketing name that includes new development frameworks that aspire to replace Windows' former Win32 platform with a modern new platform formerly referred to as Longhorn's WinFX, and now called Windows Vista and the .Net Framework 3.0.
Conceptually, this new framework has a lot in common with Apple's Cocoa frameworks in Mac OS X. The main difference is that while Apple has made no effort to offer an open specification for third party implementations of Cocoa (the way NeXT earlier opened up its predecessor under the name OpenStep), Microsoft has submitted portions of .Net technologies to the ECMA standards body.
Back in 2000, Microsoft's release of .Net's C# language and its Common Language Infrastructure captured the attention of Miguel de Icaza, a FOSS developer behind the Linux GNOME environment.
De Icaza started Mono, an open source project to implement Microsoft's .Net development platform for Linux. His company, Ximian, also worked to create an open source alternative to Microsoft's Exchange Server, called Ximian Evolution.
Ximian was bought up by Novell, which continues to support the development of Mono for a variety of platforms, including Apple's Mac OS X. Last fall, Microsoft entered into an agreement with Novell to not sue each others’ customers for patent infringement. This includes Novell customers using Mono.
Does this mean that Microsoft is now aligned with open source developers and working to push open, interoperable implementations of its software? Is the old triangle of contention between Microsoft, Linux and Apple dissolving into a free and open love circle?
Ha Ha, No.
Microsoft is not trying to usher in a new OpenStep with .Net. It is working to usher in a new Win32: another decade of dependance upon Microsoft software that can only work on Windows. Why the subterfuge on submitting portions of .Net to standards bodies? Three guesses, and the first two don't count!
The best way to keep opponents busy is to give them false directions that lead into traps. This will distract them from blazing their own successful, competing trail, and will lead them directly into containment with the least mess and inconvenience.
Microsoft is leading Mono users and developers into a pleasant feeling trap. Along the way, they gain appreciation for Microsoft's development tools as they struggle to make their own open source copies. They will grow increasingly familiar with Microsoft's directions, up to the point where they are hopelessly brainwashed into thinking that Microsoft is leading technology into a paradise of openness.
Then Microsoft will spring out its patent gun and offer a tight ultimatum: join or die. The only options for Mono developers will be to get bought out by Microsoft and join the collective, or to suddenly face the fact that Microsoft will always be two steps ahead in knowing where .Net is headed, and will have a laundry list of patents--obvious or not--lined up waiting for anyone who attempts to use its own technology to compete with it.
We already know that Mono development exists at the whim of Microsoft, and that dangerous looking stalactites of patent threats point down from above. Mono developers insist that Microsoft is a changed company and would never let anything bad happen to developers working to extend the features of its .Net.
Microsoft's New Patent War on Linux.
Mono isn't the only trap set for FOSS developers. While Microsoft has hinted at using patents to attack open source before, it has now moved from suggestion to accusation; it has turned off its safety and is taking aim at the hearts of FOSS developers, not to win them, but to shoot them.
In an article by Fortune, published by CNN, Microsoft announced that “Linux” violates at least 235 of its patents. It described a new litigation strategy for getting FOSS users to pay Microsoft royalty fees for their transgressions.
Among the patents infringed upon are 45 that apply to OpenOffice and 83 that apply to FOSS applications that are not part of the Linux kernel or its commonly associated graphical interface.
This isn’t just an attack on Linux, it’s an attack on open source development in general. That is a spectacularly bad idea for Microsoft to pursue.
Microsoft's announcements make it clear that the company isn't just working to protect its intellectual property, but that it really hopes to drag FOSS into a long term war in order to terrorize its own users who may be interested in open source, and thereby retain them as tightly held subjects within the walls of its iron curtains.
If Microsoft had any ideas to protect, it would simply lay them out and insist that Linux and other FOSS projects stop using them improperly. Instead, Microsoft is keeping its patent details a secret, while working to generate panicked headlines about the dangers inherent in using open source software.
Microsoft doesn’t want results, it wants to incite a climate of fear.
This All Happened Before.
Sound familiar? Microsoft's last assault on Linux was played similarly, albeit behind the mask of the SCO Group.
Microsoft invested tens of millions of dollars in the SCO Group, purportedly to license the company's Unix software. Why did Microsoft need such a massively expensive license from a litigation group which the rest of the tech industry--along with the stock market--valued as worthless?
Microsoft wasn't paying for the legitimate use of Unix code, it was funding the SCO Contras with illicit weapons to enable them to continue their own war against a common enemy: Linux.
Microsoft was also floating the idea that businesses faced multimillion dollar risks by using anything other than Windows in their business. “Oh no, look at me! I'm paying out craploads of money because I touched Unix! Don't make the same expensive mistake!”
Apart from a few other idiot companies who voluntarily threw money at the frauds at SCO, nobody who used Linux was found to owe the company anything. Microsoft's fantastically expensive license did keep SCO in business long enough to create years of terrorized fear surrounding the future outlook of Linux however.
SCO kept making accusations of intellectual property theft, but it kept hiding all the supposed proof. Like professional contribution collectors such as Greenpeace, SCO wasn't after action-oriented results, but only hoped to keep itself in the headlines long enough to drum up some threat money.
Just like Microsoft is doing now.
The Failure of War.
The problem for Microsoft is that it’s following a strategy of failure. SCO failed because it had no leg to stand upon in its invented war on Unix copyright violations. Microsoft similarly knows that its patent pool is not only a weak weapon that will be difficult to target and fire, but one that may likely explode in its face.
The problem with patents is that they are a lot like nuclear weapons: they pose a lot of threat, but you can't actually launch them to accomplish anything useful. Once you drop one, you'll have several more being dropped in return, negating any net results.
Like the cold war nukes, the only real purpose patents serve is to create a fear of mutually assured destruction that incites entities to work together. When Creative pulled out its iPod patent against Apple, Apple turned around with a handful of patents that could scrape the remains of Zen droppings from the floor. The result was a civil agreement that funded Creative and made it an Apple partner.
Such agreements aren't possible when patent holders try to attack individuals and create a general state of fear. Image if Creative had tried to sue iPod customers, and Apple responded by suing Zen customers! The only possible result would be disgust on the part of music player customers in general, and the badmouthing of Zens and iPods in particular. Everyone would lose.
Imagine how popular it will be for Microsoft to start suing companies that have mixed Linux and Windows operations. What would that do to prop up Microsoft loyalty figures or sales?
Will it incite interest in Microsoft’s other attempts to gain the attention of developers, including Silverlight?
Microsoft's Known Unknowns.
Like the RIAA, Microsoft must face the reality that suing your own customers is a strategy of failure. But consider what else will happen if the companies that defended Linux from SCO--and who now center their business on FOSS--turn their attention to Microsoft’s patent attacks in return.
IBM certainly has some patents of its own. Is it likely that Microsoft might violate some of them? Because Microsoft's Windows source code is secret, we would never know unless the company were foolish enough to open itself to legal scrutiny by inviting such retaliation.
And of course, there is another matter that Microsoft might unwittingly crack open: by launching a full frontal assault on open source using its software patents, Microsoft risks calling the legitimacy of software patents in general into question. The US Supreme Court has not ruled on software patents before.
However Fortune reported that just a month ago, the Supreme Court “stated in a unanimous opinion that patents have been issued too readily for the past two decades, and lots are probably invalid. For a variety of technical reasons, many dispassionate observers suspect that software patents are especially vulnerable to court challenge.”
As Microsoft begins waging its all out war against Linux, how far will its popularity decline? And will that war be conveniently limited to a far away land, or might it cause fear and distress to Microsoft's own customers? Would Microsoft's own customers be targeted as potential enemies in massive, RIAA-style crackdowns?
When asked by Fortune whether Microsoft would ever seek to “sue its customers for royalties, the way the record industry has,” Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer answered, “That's not a bridge we've crossed, and not a bridge I want to cross today on the phone with you.”
That should certainly scare the Windows out of Microsoft's customers.
Wow, a rise of a whole 10%, and it expects a good chunk of that to come from a rise in third-world sales. What, you thought IBM went all open source? Where have you been? IBM, like Oracle, realizes the good business sense of running their products on Linux. A threat to Linux is a threat to IBM's business model.
Besides, there's still a committed white knight in the Open Invention Network, which has a bunch of patents ready to throw at Microsoft. BTW, IBM is a founder of the OIN.
> Seeing how that resulted in him becoming the richest man on earth it was obviously quite brilliant.
No argument, as I said above, his vision (in that regard), and certainly his ability to turn that vision into an outrageously successful business, are unparalleled.
>> The fact is that free and open software pre-dated Gates and Microsoft, and will be there long after the proprietary model loses the advantage it enjoyed since 1982 or so.
> Well Microsoft and Oracle set new records for income and profit every quarter, while those free software guys protest in the streets in their hazmat suits. I know who I'm betting on LOL.
They do? I had the impression that Microsoft's income and profit were not setting new records every quarter any more. Maybe I'm mistaken. Could you provide a link?
It's common knowledge, and why he's called the father of free software, and actually has a point in claiming it should be called GNU/Linux.
I accuse you, right along with your ideological counterpart Stallman.
No I'm willing to use some open source software such as OpenSolaris and BSD Unix on occassion. I just steer clear of radical green party leftists like Stallman and smarty mouth foreigners like Torvalds, being a strong conservative American, obviously unlike you.
It's not. He has the compiler, a GUI (on some distros) and a set of tools. That is dwarfed by the kernel, OpenOffice, Firefox, and the plethora of non-GNU tools and applications that come with the average distro.
and why he's called the father of free software
Probably to the zealots and the uninformed media who listen to them.
and actually has a point in claiming it should be called GNU/Linux
Why don't we use GNU/Mozilla/Sun/IBM/KDE/Linux?
He has a very big ego. He won't even do interviews if a publication doesn't always use that term. He's just pissed that a kid blew past him to develop a popular kernel while he's been working on one for 17 years and still doesn't have anything approaching production-capable.
BSD Unix on occassion
FreeBSD, isn't that the one that got dumped because of the project leader's anti-American sentiment?
Or are you just mad about the GPL because of the give-back clause?
Wrong of course, Stallman’s groups own the copyright on more code in Linux distros than any other entity. An amazing 75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them. As for your supposed examples Torvalds himself actually only owns the copyright on a small portion of overall kernel, hilarious how little you understand something so obviously important to you.
As for BSD, nope you’re wrong about that too of course, it was netBSD. As for FreeBSD, don’t you find it hysterical that your linux hit men lawyers at OIN actually ran their website on Free BSD and not Linux for a good while? I do LOL. Linux’s hired guns running their own website on BSD, classic.
Quit trying to quietly move the goalposts. You thought I wouldn't notice? You said that they own "the copyright on most Linux distro code."
Okay, let's check, do they indeed own the copyright on most Linux distro code? Remember, they own the copyright to all GNU packages.
Ubuntu has 15,214 total packages. A search for GNU shows 721 packages. That means that GNU packages make up just under 5% of the total packages in this common Linux distro. That doesn't count the fact that most GNU packages are small applications, utilities and libraries compared to the kernel, OpenOffice, etc., which probably brings you down to under 3%.
Care to retract, or shall we just chalk it up to yet another lie?
An amazing 75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them.
Here goes another easy fact check:
SourceForge has 148,728 registered projects, but to be nice I'll only include those projects with published files, 66,820. GNU has 5,358 packages. Again to be really nice I'll assume that every single GNU package is in SourceForge, which isn't true.
You said, above, 75%. I just showed, from the sources, 8%. You are WAY off.
Care to retract, or shall we just chalk it up to yet another lie?
As for your supposed examples Torvalds himself actually only owns the copyright on a small portion of overall kernel
And this means what? What matters in this conversation is that the kernel and other non-GNU (FSF-owned) applications dwarf the minimal contribution of GNU software in the average Linux distro.
hilarious how little you understand something so obviously important to you.
I think you need to start laughing at yourself. I know I'm laughing at you.
As for FreeBSD, don’t you find it hysterical that your linux hit men lawyers at OIN actually ran their website on Free BSD and not Linux for a good while?
Not at all. They defend open source software. BSD is open source software. The sound you hear is Captain Obvious hitting you over the head with his clue stick.
As for BSD, nope you’re wrong about that too of course, it was netBSD.
Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD (mistyped Free), guy who was cut off by DARPA for his anti-American attitude, was also one of the four founders of your NetBSD. He even gave NetBSD its name.
Do you feel unclean now?
LOL, what no actual stats to show “copyright”? Talk about moving the goalposts LMAO. Start with this, who has more than the 721 you showed for GNU alone, even in your bloated foreign “Ubuntu” the fattest Linux on the planet? COMPLETE copyright, on the entire module?
Not only is this common knowledge, I checked your link, how many modules are listed for “Torvalds” under your own link? My search showed 8. LMAO! IBM? 171. Total. Sun? 97.
You’re a joke dude, the whole Linux O/S REQUIRES the GNU compilers. According to your own link Stallman has more than Torvalds, IBM, and Sun combined. What an incredible fraud you tried to purpetrate on this board, again.
We’ve already seen you admit to lying, on purpose. Now to see attempt this is after that already happened is even more pathetic. I’m pretty sure I can even go back in my posting history somewhere and show where you’ve already been blown out of the water on this exact same argument.
No, I blow you out of the water from such a safe distance, the real freepers of this board get quite a show.
I only told you I dipped my toe in it occassionally, you're the open source freak here.
Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD (mistyped Free), guy who was cut off by DARPA for his anti-American attitude
Yeah we know. You "mistyped" LOL but this whacko is still another one of your foreign heroes.
The FSF maintains the copyright on all GNU software. Contributors to GNU software are required to turn over their copyrights to the FSF. What software the FSF has a copyright in, it's in the GNU collection.
Your statement was that the FSF owns, quote, "the copyright on most Linux distro code." I just proved it wrong by showing the minimal amount of GNU software in a popular Linux distribution.
I did not expect that you could be honest. BTW, here's an oldie for you.
That's from when SUSE was 5.2, back in 1999, when Linux was a fraction of the size it is now, thus making GNU a larger percentage of the then-young OS. Since then what comes in Linux has grown -- the kernel (over 20 times the size now) but also the inclusion of OpenOffice, etc., and hundreds of thousands of lines of code donated by IBM (we know from the SCO case). And back then GNU contribution was only 10%.
So your claim that the FSF owns "the copyright on most Linux distro code" is absolutely proven false. You need at least 50% to be true, and you are nowhere near that.
I would ask you to retract your lies again, but I don't expect honesty anymore.
Oh, and are you going to answer for lying about "75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them"? Are you going to try to weasel out of that too? Or will you just run away, as you did recently over Sun after you were caught lying?
The record here is clear. You put up inaccurate statements, and instead of retracting them when show wrong you evade, misdirect, or go on the attack. Basically, you just lied twice. This will go into a bookmark, as will the last thread, for documenting your absolutely, factually proven lies.
ROFL. You’d be safer under a rock.
But you were proud of using it instead of the evil leftist Linux. But you were using America-hating software unknowingly. Your ignorance always gets you, every time.
Yeah we know. You "mistyped"
Free/Net/Open/Trusted/True/BSD, sometimes I mistype. And unlike you I actually correct myself.
LOL but this whacko is still another one of your foreign heroes.
Theo de Raadt is an ass, although an insanely talented programmer and security expert. Most of the open source community is in agreement on this. His attitude is why they kicked him off the NetBSD project.
You've just been caught in two factual lies and complete ignorance of the history of the operating system you use, and you say you somehow won this? Now that's funny.
I take it this means you've given up. You just can't refute the facts, solidly linked, proven. 75% of SourceForge projects owned by the FSF, that's ROFL.
It's time for you to slink away now, soundly defeated by the facts yet again.
No I wasn't. I know all about your antiAmerican hero the Raadt. I corrected your error when you claimed he was associated with FreeBSD. You simply cannot post a single post that is accurate.
You're own link showed leftist fanatic Stallman with more "Ubuntu" files attributed to him than everyone else combined LOL. When you grossly misrepresent your own links you're nothing but chum at this point.
Try Ubuntu
Exactly how is 721 (GNU packages) more than 14,493 (the packages of "everyone else combined")?
But that wasn't your statement. You said he owns "the copyright on most Linux distro code." He obviously doesn't. Now retract, or live with a lie on record.
I see you aren't even trying to weasel out of your lie that "75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.