Slashdot Mirror
Halloween Document Revisited
GroundBounce writes: "The front page of LWN has an interesting three-year-after analysis of the predictions in the Halloween document, which was "leaked" from Microsoft around Halloween of 1998. It's interesting to see how their predictions have/have not panned out."
As the memo says, they only way to "eliminate" OSS is to understand a process. Ironically enough, the entity searching for this "process" will in the end, find itself.
This is much like the ancient greek story OEdipus Rex, where he searches for a murderer and finds himself to be the person for whom he was searching. IMO, Microsoft in itself is the type of thing that drives OSS projects. The desire for non-corporate software, because of their greediness in terms of money, and inefficency of their products, and the desire to re-invent the wheel to be better than the current one, with input from all parties interested.
In order to combat the fees, the source code must be free and open, such that nobody will ever be able to claim it as their own and stop reproduction of it. And with OSS, anybody that sees a better way to do something, can contribute it. Whereas with the corporate model, you must write your programs to your manager's specifications, making innovation difficult at the developer level.
So in the end, the drive for OSS is to get away from the monolithic corporate model, which Microsoft ultimately represents. To destroy OSS, they must truly make their products more efficient and cause people to desire to migrate back to their software despite licensing fees.
Just some thoughts on the statments contained in the memo... maybe they're right, maybe they're not.
The Linux community in general seems to be jumping up & down with joy with the recent "exposure" of an internal memo by a Microsoft employee, which in no uncertain terms identifies Open Source software in general, and Linux in particular, as a serious threat to Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. This was seen as a significant boost in confidence to all who believe that "great men must have great enemies", and in the software world, there can be no enemy greater than Microsoft. It appears that the document was released via some undeterminable source from within Microsoft, and now, confronted with the wildfire distribution of it, they are acting in accordance to what is expected of a corporation which has its dirty laundry hung in public. Shame on them. Tut tut.
But just suppose...
What if this document was not *leaked* out by some careless/disgruntled employee? What if the document was *planted* by Microsoft?
"What good would that bring to Microsoft?" some might ask. Just think: with the DOJ actions against Microsoft for essentially using its monopolistic position to eliminate competitors in other fields, what better defence if this very monopoly is brought into question?
The argument would then be: Microsoft can't be pushing other companies around. It isn't a monopoly. Look how easy Linux got into the market. And see, even Microsoft is "grudgingly" considering it a threat and are taking appropriate measures. And the world agrees. Over 7 million people don't use Windows. What kind of monopoly is that?
Microsoft can't lose! Right now, with the bad publicity it's getting as a giant bully, what better tactic than to show a vulnerability. Furthermore, they can readily admit the document is from within as the strategy to 'deal' with Linux/Open Source only comes from one employee. They'll just say, "well, it doesn't mean we accept all suggestions by employees, right?"
Also, Linux/Open source cannot sue!! How can you show anti-competitive behaviour on an entity that has no legal existence? Especially one which makes no profit?
And the best part is that now that the document is "in the open", they wouldn't be expected to actually follow the strategies outlined. The world would think, "well yeah, now they know we know, they *can't* follow those strategies". But what if they never wanted to follow those strategies in the first place? Then there would be no loss. Case in point: when was the last time Microsoft gave away (as in open source) any serious code?
Lastly, ask yourselves: now that the document is out in the open, is Microsoft in any weaker position?
Is the entire Linux community being played as fools by the master puppeteer?
This article is very poor. There could be way better answers to most of the claimed quoted from these Halloween memo's and though the author has made a substantial effort during writting of the article, it feels like he got tired and didn't think many of his arguments through.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
This reminder of halloween document more than shows us that the ONLY important remedy in the M$-DOJ case is to force open protocols and open data exchange formats. Everything else is just a bonus or bogus. Even restrictive OEM contracts would not uphold long, but proprietary protocols and data formats might have the potential to break neck to OSS development
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
2.5 isn't out yet, and maybe it should be, but look- you have 2.4.1, 2.4.2... what are we at now, 2.4.13? You can use all of these if you want, and most of them will be (fairly) minor improvements upon the last. Who cares if .14 isn't here yet, run the version before.
With closed-source, however, you're waiting for the next version which bundles all those subversions into one- Wind95... Wind98- three years with no major changes. That's why Linus can miss a target with no major repercussions, while the wait for the next version of Windows can seriously mess up plans.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
It is true that closed-source projects can make one sort of deadline and stick to it. That's the "we'll ship by" sort of deadline. That's not the kind of deadline that knowledgeable users generally need.
The sort of deadline that open-source projects can generally meet is the "we'll get a nightly build up every night" and the "we won't call it version 1.0 until we're ready" sorts. These will do just fine for knowledgeable users. No closed-source company can meet this kind of commitment.
Notice that the one thing that for-profit, closed-source developers cannot do no matter how hard they try is ship bugfree software on a hard schedule. No one can. What they can do is ship version 1.0 when they said they would, and charge you for the service pack, and then charge you again when version 2.0 comes out with the features that you paid for in version 1.0 actually working.
Here's where the libre software is so wonderful. The total cost of ownership may be higher, lower or just the same as the closed source stuff, but the total benefits of ownership are generally much higher.
Folks like to say that you get what you pay for, and that's almost true: when you buy something you won't get any more than you pay for. The payment makes an upper bound on what you get. That isn't true when someone gives you something. The initial cost of $0.0 makes a lower bound on the value.
With libre software you get what the developers claim they're delivering, and sometimes a lot more. You don't have to wait for a deadline or an official release to start using the latest version of GNUfoo; you can keep trying it and start using it when you say it's ready.
Ask yourself: is it really an advantage for the closed-source companies to ship buggy crap that isn't ready, so they can meet a deadline? It is for them; it lets them gouge you and make a payroll. Is making a deadline that way really good for the customer?
See what I've been reading.
You forgot to mention that people should start there posts with "This may be a troll..." or "Mod me down if you want..." ... Gauranteed Karma points.
There's a difference, however: nobody liked IBM. Everyone thought they were arrogant and useless (and they were right). Most people (not Slashdotters, but we're not most people) like Microsoft. Most people are convinced that Bill Gates INVENTED computers, operating systems, word processors, and the Internet ("What an idiot Al Gore is! Everybody knows that *Bill Gates* invented the Internet!"). People seriously believe that all good things in this world proceed directly from Bill Gates and his incredible genius. I know, I know--but that's honestly what they think.
Measuring the success of an open source project in terms of "market share" is completely wrongheaded. First of all, nobody keeps accurate statistics anyway. And second, the size of the user base has much less impact on the project's health than, say, the number of people who contribute to its development, and the quality of their efforts. And on both these counts, the BSDs are in the very first rank of the free software world.
The BSDs aren't all things to all people. Linux tries to be, and succeeds to a remarkable extent. But there is ample room for the solid, stable codebase that is BSD alongside the blizzard of Linux development. Look at the recent article on Linux 2.4's VM woes, for example. Here is something fundamental that most people agree the BSDs have got right, and that Linux, while always improving, has still got to work on.
In addition to the quality of their codebase, of course, the BSDs have the BSD license. This is not to say the BSDL is superior to the GPL. But the BSDL does make some things possible that the GPL does not, and for that reason alone I think that Linux will never completely displace the BSDs. Consider what Apple is doing with BSD-based OS X: they're putting Unix out there on millions of desktops. Not on servers in closets, mind you, but desktops. Unix for the masses. I think this is one of the most important things to hit the Unix community since Linux itself. And this is a huge victory for free software even though OS X itself isn't free; it shows the power of the open source development model, and it provides an open source-friendly beachhead on the desktop that will hopefully be the basis for further future advances. And BSD made it happen.
So in short, even if the "facts" and "numbers" cited in your post weren't errant nonsense, they would still be a poor reason to turn one's back on BSD.
AC.
Pretty much all history tells us there is: IBM tried something, and it failed.
MS might try and succede. It might try and fail. When it tries and fails, people will say, "hey, that's just like IBM". And MS will decline. But really, failure is failure. Closed protocols are not failure. Being a giant company is not failure. Being a giant company in decline is failure. Presenting closed protocols that no one uses is failure.
When that happens, MS will have failed. Not because it's just like IBM, but just because that stuff happens. When you lose something, you always find it in the last place you look. Failure precedes decline. These aren't grand patterns, they just are.
"Unfortunately, (emphasis mine) the story about Linux saving Amazon millions [cnet.com] was not as bad for Microsoft as it was good for Linux."
What is so unfortunate about something not being harmful to MS? Does harming MS somehow benefit others? Somehow a large, or at least very vocal part of the linux user base thinks so. I see the same feeling in the article:
"Reproducing what is available on a Microsoft desktop will win some users, but it is not enough. It may yet turn out, however, that Microsoft's licensing will provide that impetus to switch."
Now for the authors here, I can almost see a reason to want MS to lose market share. Their readership is made almost entirely of linux users and they are operating under the assumption that for there to be more linux users, there will have to be less MS users as if the number of potential computer users were a finite quantity of persons and organizations that will use MS *or* linux.
This assumption is just wrong. Number one, a majority of those who use linux on the desktop also use windows on desktop via dual booting or have multiple machines. Secondly, this is grounded on the notion that everyone who wants to use a computer for anything is already doing so and that the odd individual who purchases his/her first pc tomorrow will not possibly be a linux user. This might be the case for someone who heads to best buy and picks up a new system with winME preinstalled, but it neglects the guy who is first introduced to computers at his linux using friend's home or the second grader who browses her first website in a volunteer supported, linux based school computer lab. These are the people who will most likely stick with linux because after a few months becoming familiar with kde, mozilla, etc, they will have litle patience to "wait while windows builds a driver information database" or reboot for every "general protection fault in crappycode.dll"
Even so, this is only beneficial to people who make their money from a linux using market. As a user who loves linux and uses it almost exclusively, I don't care how many other linux users there are. I certainly don't feel like it's *unfortunate* when something doesn't hurt MS. I use linux becaues it does what I want it to, and as long as it meets that requirement I could care less what liscense the new MS product is released under or how many people buy their products.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
Very good observation, that the latest MS products are generally good enough. I'm running W2K right now, and don't need anything better (OK, my switch to Linux is slow).
BUT - this might be part of a new MS business strategy. How many old products are "unsupported"? Can't buy Windows 95 anymore - even though it has most of what I need.
My guess - MS is going to phase out their older (Office 97 and 2000) stuff, then step up their license audits. A company will suddenly discover they can't legally run Office 97 and they need more licenses - MS won't be selling Office 97 or 2000 licenses then, so the company HAS to upgrade to Office XP, with the fancy anti-copying features. In a few years, MS will be able to GUARANTEE a stream of revenue from ANYONE who uses MS products with this subscription-based model. Repeat this strategy for Windows and your other favorite MS apps...
MS is trying to consolidate their revenue stream.
Methinks it is an ingenious idea to create another id on slashdot and make it post plagiarisms, and then point them out yourself to get karma.
Well except you have a low UID and wouldn't stoop to this level.
True, most projects don't make it out of the gate, but they don't all have to. Just because most projects fail doesn't mean that others don't succeed. The fact is that there are projects to fulfill just about every desire you could have on a computer. Web browser, instant messaging, servers, office suites, some games, programming tools, etc. etc. Sure, lots of projects fail and die, but enough succeed to make the system viable. If you don't believe me, try running a linux system for a little while.
Straw men. What does this have to do with the previous argument, where you said OSS projects are all stillborn? Here you point out two that are actively in development and consistently improving, contradicting your earlier statement. Both Windows and Linux are moving targets, and just because both projects like to tout improvements with varying degrees of rhetoric doesn't mean that one is less viable than the other. Where's the argument here that says OSS is bad?
As far as I can tell, no such thing has been shown. Granted, OSS may not have lived up to all the Windows-killing hype, but that doesn't make it any less competitive. The availability of free tools that you have near total control of is a very powerful incentive for a lot of people, and will continue to be so in the future. The OSS promise isn't really "World Domination" as so many like to talk about, it's actually the opposite. It's about freedom from world domination by any one entity, and it's about personal empowerment. Linux, *BSD, et al. are still going strong, and in this sense they have completely delivered on the OSS promise.
I've really never understood this argument. True, OSS is a non-commerical hobby for many, but for many others they have been hired to work on OSS as their job. Companies use what they create as "tools" to make money, not as money makers themselves. How many software companies make money off of MS Word sales? One. How many companies make money by using MS Word as a productivity tool? Countless. Paying someone to develop GPL software is like purchasing a bunch of MS Word licenses. You're paying for your software (which you get complete control over BTW) and you make your money actually using the thing rather than selling it. That's where the profit motive actually lies. And even then, how does this relate back to the overall premise of your post that OSS is bad? Just because someone makes something as a non-commercial hobby doesn't mean it's a bad piece of work, nor does something have to be a commercial success to be a good product.
Overall, your post is a load of shit troll-boy. There are plenty of disadvantages to OSS, but you sure didn't hit on any of them.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This seems to be common view amongst Open Source/Linux advocates. What people seem to ignore is that Microsoft can change its licensing at any time. Let's assume that an OSS desktop did begin to displace Windows in some significant way. Microsoft could switch back to a more reasonable licensing scheme to bring back those who were leaving, or at least stem the flow. Anyone who is ditching Windows because of the licensing - probably isn't very committed to OSS per se.
Displacing Microsoft as the dominant desktop will take more than bad licensing or even technically better alternatives. When you get to 90%+ (or whatever the actual figure is) - the only way you get replaced by the market is if there's a total paradigm shift. A lot of us thought initially that that shift had occurred with Proprietary vs Open Source. But whilst that's a paradigm shift for developers it doesn't appear to be perceived as such by users - so it fails to have the necessary effect.
So I believe the market itself will resist displacing Microsoft for a while yet. But hang on isn't that why we have Anti-Trust laws? Oh wait - for laws to be effective you have to enforce them in some meaningful way...
"Microsoft has indeed found that FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) attacks against Linux tend to be ineffective. At their best, they are laughable; at their worst, they make up a task list of things for Linux developers to quickly address - the Mindcraft report, for example, worked in this way. The company seemed to hold out a bit more hope for FUD attacks against free software licenses, but those, too, have subsided recently."
What a weird conclusion. Linux is still wallowing in near obscurity years after this report and after billions from companies like IBM and Open Source companies to market and aid it's penetration into the corporate mainstream. Not only through it's own unfriendly and generally non-compatible design, but also through negative FUD like attacks by mainstream software companies, OEMs, and MS itself.
While I agree that these kinds of press attacks do spur developers to produce change as an answer to them, I find them far from laughable, as do the former employees of a half dozen companies that tried to give some flavor of *unix a go. Whats worse to the *nix community is the fact that more times than not, the attacks are steeped (if mis-represented)in fact and difficult to refute on their face value to an unkowledgeable public and corporate IT mindest.