Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Skeptical Of Joint Study with Microsoft
Jac writes "An interview with ZDNet reveals the low opinion Stuart Cohen, chief of Open Source Development Labs(OSDL), has of a recent Microsoft proposal to conduct a joint study on on deploying Microsoft Vs Linux. From the article: 'As far as working with Microsoft on a study, Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages...' An interesting follow-up to a recent Slashdot article.
Wont microsoft take this skeptism, and then spend 10 million in marketing to say that OSDL backed out of an open test because they know linux is inferior? FP btw
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I don't get it though. Why bother comparing the two? Use what works best for the job. I don't think that anyone should be using only one operating system all the time anyways.
~/.sig: No such file or directory
...Theodore Adorno has second thoughts about a joint paper on race issues with Adolf Hitler. News at 11:00.
At least with an objective study, those who take the trouble to read the whole report get some useful information.
While I am biased to believe that Microsoft cannot be trusted to take an truly independent report at face value, the OSDL will be hard pressed to pass on this opportunity. If you doubt this, imagine the spin Microsoft marketing could put on the alternate headline: "OSDL declines Microsoft offer for independent analysis". Looking at this angle, I actually have to tip my hat to Microsoft; the OSDL will have to handle this situation perfectly to avoid exposing an exploitable weakness. Above all, I think this move shows that Microsoft has escalated their offensive, bringing the battle for business customers onto free and open source software's home turf.
"Oh look! The OSDL is unwilling to objectively compare Linux to Windows, because they know that Windows is the obvious choice for any enterprise!"
Hardly surprising.
Lemon curry???
Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages
Correct. You know, if it talks like a duck and it walks like a duck then go on. Why would any new campaign they do be any different than they did up to now ? Nuff said.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
For years, OS-wars have been in the domain of /.'ers and such OS enthusiasts (I'd like to say tongue-in-cheek, enthusiasts for better, stable, readily-available software), while the corporate line taken by (not just MS), was Linux (and thereby all open source products) were not the same in performance, cost of adoption/transition or support
However, now that the momentum is decidedly shifting (however slow), or it seems the market is moving towards a combination of the two (MS on the desktops mostly, but Linux etc on Servers), we now have the biggest giant throwing open its coffers to throw up smokescreens as much as it can
This is not to say everything we have in the Linux world is superior always compared to say, Windows, however, what we do have is a community ready to learn, and change. How better is that compared to futzing around with existing features that MS tends to do across versions (and mostly gets it wrong lately)?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Microsoft would like you to believe that it wants to share it's market with Linux in a fair and friendly way, and that they want what is best for the customer in every situation. The commercial interests of Microsoft are only an unintended coincidence and for that matter come a distant second. Excuse me while I go and barf...
What's in it for Linux? It's only going to say what everyone knows already - Linux is cheaper, TCO is lower but there are weaknesses in some domains such as desktops. It probably sounds fair and reasonable that Microsoft wants a chance a neutral report (instead of their usual tainted, biased, paid for reports), but you just know they're going to capitalize on the air of respectability of a joint study to report the same distortions and negative PR as they always do. So why bother?
In Linux's position, having MS wanting to go head to head might be a win win situation. I know if the product were mine I'd want to mix it up with the big boys.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
OSDL is absolutely right in that their business is not running some heads up knock down, who's better activity. That's better left to the Microsoft rags that gobble up anything they say an put it in print.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
OSDL != OSDN
I think the posturing of this proposal would see it fail from the onset. MS vs Linux? I would have thought that it would be better to do a joint study looking at how both technologies and products may be used to create a more effective environment both on the desktop and in the backroom. Maybe I'm just being naive, but typically when you do a joint study your hypothesis should be one which aims to proove mutual benefit for both parties. Perhaps MS and OSDL should consider changing the study's aim from a comparitive prosess, and take a more ethnographic approach (using the knowledge on the ground to assess the situation) insteed of comming at it from above with all high heavens of "Objective" "Truth"... That's what we have been doing in the social sciences recently, perhaps it's time for the IT sector to look around a bit at how typically polarising communities can be brought together through "ethnographic" methods. Cheers Joel W (AEnertia) NZ
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
I think it is pretty easy to pass by this study. OSDL has to pay the other half of a study they are not really interested in. So this study can turn out bad or good for any party involved, but it also eats into the budget.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Money money money! And there is not 1 salesorganisation which is at the table with all the large companies. Anyway, do I care as developper if it is sold to a fortune 500? Only for my ego, I do not earn a penny with it anyway. So do I care about marketing and sales: Yes, but only if somebody hires me along with it.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
In BIG letters : Microsoft is better, bigger, stronger, more secure 100% of the time.
In small letters : This survey was paid by Microsoft, Gates and Ballmer edited the results so it could fit in this report and your screen.
Also in the news, Santa Claus is retiring.
No sig for now.
Ignore them [MS], this is the only proper thing to do. Also, have the balls to launch a campaign agaist "Get the Farts". Fight back! Microsoft is the enemy, like it or not. We don't need to treat them without respect, even fear, still it is our duty to act as in a war.
PS: I'm not sorry for all the peace loving hippies I might of offended.
My OS is clearly better than your OS! You insesitive clod.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
is totally ignore MS and leave them out in the cold.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
And then include that Coca Cola almost made a lethal mistake with their "New Coke", and you have a winning formula.
Anyway, I think linux clearly plays with the big boys already, so that is not needed anymore.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
With bevarages the actual test is relatively simple: its simply a matter of taste.
Comparing software will take a few more minutes. Agreeing even over what should be tested is an open ended question. Having an independent study is one thing, but interpreting it and emphasizing what is "relavant" is another.
So sure, this is an oportunity for OSDL to get some exposure, but Microsoft has a headstart with billions of marketing dollars to spend on spinning the story the way they like it.
--
The path of least resistence is steady deterioration: without constant effort/energy keeping information free, it becomes not free, as thermodynamics clearly st ates
...the results of a study on the supposed negative effects of cigarette smoking that was funded by a tobacco company? Or the myth of global warming as espoused by an oil company? Or the necessity of being ready for war as delineated by a weapons manufacturer? Or the lack of corruption in politics as found by it's own members? Or the utter impossibility of paedophilia within a church because of the pronouncement of some most holy reverend blah blah... If there is money and power involved there is sure to be lies as well. That's why it is such a good thing that GNU/Linux is *FREE*
Not from the company that called Google a one hit wonder?! How can you NOT trust them?!
Microsoft are pushing Software patents into Europe, the legal homeplace of Linux (I assume Linus keeps his legal entity there?).
The most telling point in Microsofts tactics
So blatant: look at this quite from that page, in H1 FFS:
Indemnification Becomes Open Source's Nightmare and Microsoft's Blessing
There is a linked PDF, also google brings up
Which is telling as well
Who funded SCO?
Microsoft
Who is pushing Patents in the eu?
Microsoft
Who is trying to get a litigation storm to damage and or destroy linux?
Microsoft
Who should probably get some more exposure about their bad activities?
Microsoft
But they don't, this kinda of cross-reporting (cause and effect) isn't done in mainstream media.
Everyone will say Linux is getting sued, noone seems to say Microsoft is behind this financially, and patents politically.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
That is exactly how Microsoft have been posturing, the OSDL should have really siezed the moment.
Or it might be over very quickly. Given MS's performance record at PR meetings, it might be just minutes before the MS test platform bluescreens or is trojaned or infested with spyware or malware.
End of review, everybody packs their bags and goes home.
The only dupe around here would be you. They actually link back to that article in the summary at the top of the page. Nevermind RTFA, how about RTFS?
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
In my case, it's prompted me to give Linux another go. It's obviousy that it has MS worried enough to go these lengths, so it's evident to me that it must be getting close to being good enough for Johnny Consumer. Hmmm, I think I'll give Ubuntu a try tonight...
Taste is secondary. Marketing is primary. Original coke changed hands twice or thrice before it started gaining acceptance with HUGE marketing effort. I know quite a few "cola derivatives" that taste better, and cost way less, but they don't have the marketing power behind them. Same with software. What about MSIE vs Netscape? Which was better? But IE was bundled with the expensive but essential (don't buy the shit that IE is free. It's just included in price of Windows), so people stopped using (free) Netscape because they didn't have the option to pay just for Windows and not IE.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
The list of companies associated with OSDL looks like the Microsoft enemies list.
IBM, Novell, HP, Intel etc.
With bevarages the actual test is relatively simple: its simply a matter of taste.
Bullshit. Companies like coke thrive off of marketting not taste. Someone above mentioned "New Coke", and don't think that New Coke came about without heavy taste testing, and blindfolded people would have picked New Coke as the better tasting product, however it didn't have the prestige that the old formula had, people had the image of the old formula's taste as being excellent, and New Coke upset that.
To support your argument, it's exactly the same in the software world. Microsoft Windows didn't gain its virtual monopoly off of making good software, they gained it from marketting.
"A study has found that coffee contributes more antioxidants - which have been linked with fighting heart disease and cancer - to the diet than cranberries, apples or tomatoes."
Perhaps tea was excluded on purpose?
If I remember correctly, tea consumption has increased in the recent years while coffee consumption dropped.
Of course you have to trust them. Not only were they right about Google being a one hit wonder, but also were spot on back in 1995 about the Internet being a passing fad.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
One of the major selling points of GNU/Linux and the rest of Open Source Software is that it's FREE as in speech, not beer.
Harping on about TCO, in _money_ terms is not addressing some of the concerns that some big business' have about using Microsoft's (and other closed source) software. It's about vendor freedom, freedom to choose and change the software. Freedom to customize software on an organization's own terms.
As the City of Munich's decision demonstrated when they chose a more expensive Linux package over Microsoft's, it aint necessarily about cash!
OSDL analysis or not, favouring Linux or not, we might just find that TCO isn't all that relevant anyway.
I can see the M$ propaganda now: "Even Linux experts agree that ...some small negative thing blown totally out of proportion...."
The only way committed and respected Linux people should agree to cooperate on a report would be if Microsoft would agree to 'equal air time' for Linux people to reply to their allegations in subsequent exploitation of that report.
That's not going to happen - so just say 'No'.
proposal to conduct a joint study on on deploying Microsoft Vs Linux.
Am I seeing double or is someone beginning his morning stutter typed session again?
In a world where software is migrating to the server, it does not matter what operating system you use, which web server you deploy, or what language you choose for your software. What matters is that it works and works well.
The executive summary mentioned that Linux and Open Source are a competitive advantage in the hands of the "right people." Who are these people? They are the best and the brightest that you want your company to hire. If you employ average or sub-average programmers to build your software on a system that constrains what you can do and limits the creativity of truly great programmers, your product will be average or sub-average. Conversely, if you hire the smartest and most creative programmers and give them limitless freedom in terms of what they can do with a system, you get the best product your money can buy.
What freedoms are denied programmers using a closed source, proprietary OS and web server? The source code, of course, but few people are likely to actually understand and modify the Linux kernal. The freedom that is denied programmers is the "framework" provided the average programmer to work with.
While not exactly open source and free, Java and J2EE provides freedoms not found in .NET and IIS. It drives some programmers crazy.
J2EE is a specification and a series of interfaces, which are pieces of code that describe code. An incoming request to a webserver, for example, is defined by the interface HttpServletRequest. The actual implementation is left to your webserver vendor. You have the freedom to implement your own HttpServletRequest, as the author of this report has done. You can create a simple, mock Request that would provide just enough functionality to test your server-side code offline. You wouldn't need a running webserver for this. You wouldn't need testers pointing and clicking on a web page to test. It could be handled automatically in the middle of the night while you are sleeping.
.NET and IIS, on the other hand, provide no such convenience. HttpRequest in .NET is a "sealed" class, meaning it cannot be extended for your own use. It is not an interface, so you canot provide your own definition of how it should behave. You are forced to use it one way only: the way Microsoft tells you to use it. The "average" programmer mentioned above is very likely to put much of an application's business logic in an ASPX "code behind" page. How can this be easily tested, offline, in an automated fashion? The short answer is it can't, or not easily, not without writing your own offline version of IIS. The .NET Framework dictates to the programmer exactly how they should write code. Expert programmers find this maddening.
When expert programmer's control the entire software stack from webserver to OS and can choose the tools that provide them the most freedom, they will run circles around the average programmer who's forced to code in a way dictated by another. The expert programmers will win every time.
In summary, you should choose the best tools that provide the most freedom to the smartest programmers you can find. Doing otherwise is to deliberately choose "average" or "sub-average", which is not a winning solution in the long run.
Never take what the enemy offers you.
Words to live by.
With the condition that *open source version* of microsoft windows will be deployed with linux.
OSDL needs source code to study on to what extent scalability and security are compromised for the "ease of use".
Slashdot = Sarcasm
..maybe you can keep track of your tabs then! hahaha! Anyway, the guy who did the coffee study has also been looking at tea. Just coffee has more antioxidants in it.
Pepsi vs. Coke is a comparison over a marketable item that doesn't take much effort to change in your daily routine.
Linux vs. Windows on the other hand is "geek" stuff that would take phenomenal effort from standard users and businesses to switch to either platform.
Linux (and OSDL) are better suited to word of mouth and niche sectors of the market. Pepsi is better suited to TV ads and advertising slogans. OSDL should stay out of this comparison.
The OSDL not taking this just proves that Linux users are babies that don't want to wake up and smell the coffee. Open your eyes - if you are right, Microsoft will get squashed in this study. But if you are wrong, there are going to be a lot of crybabies ranting about an improper study once again.
that would throw this off, is the fact that when you do a Linux install, many distros include hordes of additional software. So, when I install Windows with all of my software, including office suite, development IDE's, web server and databases, it takes an entire weekend of constant rebooting and watching my pc like a hawk. With Linux, I just have to be there for the initial selections then, once the install starts, I just walk away until it's done (a few hours later, instead of the next day).
Plus, each distro has different installations. Some are much better than others. That makes comparing an install more difficult. Also, an ease of install (or ease of anything, really) is subjective to the individual. For example, WinXP uses those stupid balloon pop-ups everywhere for "ease of use", personally I find them a great hindrance to my work, and would not consider them an "ease of use" feature.
There are too many "what if's" in something like this. Microsoft has never played fare, why would they start now? They most certainly have something up their sleeve. Although, I am not overly concerned, as long as they do an install which includes a format, MS will lose. I can't remember how many times people get lost in their blue screen of formatting options. Of every one I know, that the single most common problem. Press F6 in the first 3 seconds for sata install...oh I need an extra driver?! gaa, press F3 and go find driver, try again, press L no, no R, crap F3 and redo...heh.
Every time MS launches a marketing campaign against Linux, it shoots itself in the corporate foot. Redmond is very low on corporate credibility in some circles, and every one of these nasty, transparent assaults of theirs just makes them look worse and Linux look more attractive.
They're fighting themselves. They're shadowboxing and they don't even know it. And they can't understand why their knuckles bleed everytime they go for a knockout blow.
I could almost feel sorry for them...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Huh? They always play fare. Nothing from microsoft is free, you always pay a fare to microsoft. Linux can be fare-free.
However, Microsoft does never play fair. Say what you mean, you illiterate moron.
Trust me, if a company invests in Red Hat Linux, they *will* be stuck with Red Hat Linux for a while.
Its very hard changing Distros.
IT'S A TRAP!
but seriously this doesn't look good. why would someone talk to a competitor (or a virus that's plaquing the earth, whatever is your fancy) and say that they just want to have a friendly happy analysis?
Anybody remember the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
www.omglolh4x.com
Ummm- no. Go into most big corporations or small businesses (at least in North America) and find that most people 'know' Windows is the biggest, strongest, and best thing they need. They 'know' it works, 'know' it does what they want, 'know' it's compatible with their software, hardware, customers, and supply chain.
Most people don't see Microsoft's marketing as FUD anymore than they see Coke and Pepsi's marketing as FUD.
We are the Slashdot crew who whine about big corp squishing the little guy who just so happens to use Linux. Don't think for a second your views represent management and a large majority of IT people out there. I run into at least three a day who go on about how Windows and dot-NET are the only things they would ever dream of using.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
although it really doesn't matter. The OSDL does not equal linux and open source, Microsoft is attempting to find an opponent to kill, or at least to generate FUD and sway public opinion. Open source however is ubiquitous, that is the beauty of GPL.
I would suggest that OSDL not enter into an agreement with Microsoft, or if they do then they make certain significant demands upon Microsoft.
Finally, good can come from this because any weakness found in linux/open source will receive attention and be quickly remedied, again pointing out one of the benefits to open source.
I thought that was a curernt event funny.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
OSDL is a development laboratory, has no products to sell, and thus no interest in participating in such marketing stunts. Microsoft should ask Red Hat instead.
Linux and Windows are really quite similar... ESPECIALLY Windows!
How long would Microsoft drag out the negotiations regarding precisely what should be tested and the methodologies that would be used?
How long would Microsoft drag out the guidelines for interpreting the results of the testing that is performed?
What more productive things could the ODSL people be doing instead of being sucked into this quagmire?
I think the OSDL should politely decline the invite to spend... er waste good money on stupid research and launch a counter capmaign "Get the Right Facts" or some such.
Facts:
1. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - Fact.
2. Microsoft has written software and spent billions - specifically to crush competition and reduce the user experience - FACT.
3. Microsoft fudged a demo during trial - under OATH - Fact.
etc.... instead of simply declining and being labelled a coward.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Why the hell doesn't Microsoft just tell the truth? If they had a get the facts program saying that most of the programs available for Windows don't have a Linux equivilent, especially those that are a little obscure, and that the vast majority of games don't work on Linux, it'd be reason for home users and corperate users to not use Linux. There's got to be some people out there not taking this into account, and all the stuff they're saying now most people don't believe or trust. And if they were honest they wouldn't get such bad press about it all the time!
While I'm pretty sure that Microsoft can and will use an OSDL refusal to partake in this study as fodder for yet another attack on Linux along the lines of "Linux refuses to partake in neutral and unbiased comparison of the two operating systems which shows their fear of real competition bla bla bla", OSDL would be literally insane to take MS up on the offer and they seem to relaise this, thank God.
MS, IMO, wants this study for a certain reason: They are having terrible trouble finding a source target, a tangible thing to abuse, threaten and dominate, in Linux. Attacking Linux itself is extremely difficult as there are no less than two major enterpise level commercial distros: SuSE/Novell and Red Hat, and numerous non-commercial ones with very good reputations, such as Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Knoppix etc. In fact the only thing they really have in common is Linus, who, surprise surprise, works at OSDL.
MS, IMO; perceives OSDL as the source of Linux and has, IMO, determined that damaging OSDL's reputation would damage all the Linux distros' reputations. There is no way on earth in heaven or hell that Microsoft would let this comparison be truly neutral. There's simply too much at stake for them. They would almost certainly try to force certain factors into the test that would push the results in Microsoft's favour, be it by providing a hacked version of Windows that runs faster on the compared tasks, or comparing toolsets (Visual Studio etc), or by forcing OSDL partakers into NDAs and non competitive agreements for seeing MS code.
The reality, though, is that Linux, if it doesn't take the bait for rubbish like this, will continue to grow in the enterprise space. Buyers might be confused by MS marketing, but I'm pretty sure they trust IBM's backing of Linux, and no amount of FUD marketing by MS will change that.
You are correct, use what works best for the job, but how do you know which is best for the job if you never compare the competition head to head?
r ing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
I personally don't like the "use what works" reasoning because in most cases its used as a cop out or excuse to maintain the status quo.
That said I don't pay much attention to most of the studies that are thrown back and forth because 1) there is a lot of misinformation (pretty much from one side, yeah you know which side), and 2) most of the studies fail to start at the beginning before any features are speced or any pricing is quoted.
The first step in determining what works for the job is to examine the fine print. That is the licensing agreement which binds you once you make your decision.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cybersrc/about/compa
If you do your due diligence and start with the licensing then in most cases you won't need to go any further.
Statistically speaking it may make sense to ignore the licensing as most individuals and companies do, however, that wont play well as a defense if the licensing and your practices are in conflict and the licensee demands retribution.
If OSDL backs out, Microsoft says "See, they are afraid to compare their stuff to ours."
On the other hand, I think we all know that Microsoft doesn't boast without substance. They wouldn't be making this challenge if they didn't think they were going to come out on top.
I don't understand what you mean about reporting the same distortions and negative PR they always do. Isn't this what people do? Don't Linux zealots continually claim that Windows is insecure and poorly written?
"that taste better" to you...hence, a matter of taste.
There are sodas I like better than Coke, but they don't cost less. (Stewart's, Jones, etc...)
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Bwahahahahahah!!!
I get first post and the Microsoft shills moderate me down to flamebait!
Bwahahahahaha!!! Losers! Your retaliation is lame!
Give it up! Give...it...up! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Maybe the OSDL should say, "sure, we'll participate in a TCO study that excludes the costs of interoperating with existing Windows apps and infrastructure". In other words, a study based strictly on the inherent quality of the two systems.
And if you want to do a study that doesn't exclude that stuff, give us the info we need to implement interoperability, and we'll participate in that too.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It was Steve Ballmer saying that FOSS is an intellectual property cancer attaching itself to everything.
It was Jim Alchin (#4 man at Microsoft at the time) saying that FOSS is un-American and that legislators need to be educated about the danger. (Let me get out my checkbook Mr. congressman... how much education do you need today?)
Various people have said that FOSS supporters are communists.
See? It wasn't Microsoft after all. Microsoft are the good guys.
We don't hear any more of this kind of trash talk from Microsoft. (Nowdays it all comes from "independent" analysts and "reporters".) I'm sure that Microsoft has only our best interests in mind.
The other phrase is "embrace, extend, extinguish". For example:
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Now there's the corporate mindset that's been missing from the open-source movement all these years. It's about time we caught up with the suits.
Operating systems are mathematical - not art.
Chemistry used to be called alchemy. Alchemy was a process where researchers kept everything a secret, because they wanted to be able to turn base metal into gold, so only they would benefit. Bgates has applied this process to computer science, in doing so has made himself the richest man on the planet.
Science became a dominant process in human affairs because alchemists gave up the idea that discoveries made should only benefit them. Please try to imagine what a fine operating system we would have now, had M$ released the source code to win 95. Bgates made himself disgustingly rich + his cronies and shareholders, but made the rest of us poorer.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
... then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Looks like MS is fighting now, but they're only able to fight on the PR front. With Vista appearing to be a minor upgrade of XP, it seems they're not able to fight on the innovation front, where a host of competitors - Linux, OSS, OSX, Google, etc - are attacking. What's that I see written on the wall?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Just convince the COO or CFO to switch and it will trickel down from there!
"Customers have asked me for an analysis on Linux," Taylor said in the statement.
Those customers are obviously PHB's simply needing justification for going w/ Microsoft. They've already made up their minds, and may have already made the purchase and now have to justify it to a boss who got wind of "free" OSS. It's like, "hey GM, can you get me a comparison of your cars vs Ford's so I can make a more informed buying decision?" Translation: "Please tell me what I should want to hear, and then tell me what you've told me I want to hear, so I can justify to my boss and keep my secretary and corner office."
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
A penguin shouldn't have been the Linux mascot. That should have been a road-runner. With Bill Gates as Wile E. Coyote, hatching one bone-head scheme after another tryng to catch it...
"Customers have asked me for an analysis on Linux," Taylor said in the statement. "While we had done some research in our Linux and open-source lab, there's not yet any substantial, fact-based research out there on Linux to help customers make value based IT decisions."
This sounds like "Hey, there ain't any sustaintial fact-based research out there on Linux that I can persuade Microsoft's customers not to deploy Linux in their organisation!"
Microsoft wants Windows running on every computer in the world, because they make more money that way. If a computer is running Linux that could be running Windows, then Linux is eating their lunch; so to Microsoft, Linux is competition.
On the other hand, the crowd of people who brought us Linux don't have a similar need to have every computer in the world running Linux. You could call Windows competition to Redhat, Novell, and other Linux companies, but they are a small part of the giant crowd of people that produce Linux and all the other FOSS that runs on it. There are some benefits to an expanded user base, as it expands the pool of potential contributors to improving the software. And it's gratifying. But the FOSS crowd do not share Microsoft's need to be the only OS in the world. Hence Microsoft is not competition for Linux.
Seen in this light, it's clear why Microsoft wants more "studies" as FUD fodder, and why OSDL has no interest.