I have to say... you're spot on with how I've seen the situation. I'd like to add a couple points.
It is plain-as-day that IBM's adoption of Linux is yet another thrust/counter-thrust in the decades old struggle against Microsoft, especially now that they threaten the Enterprise market with increasingly robust NT 5.0 based system software (laugh if you want, but that's how you need to see it when painting the Big Picture).
A big piece of this Microsoft threat is the hardware. Microsoft has linked their offering to commodity hardware. Over the years, this commodity platform has been increasing in performance - to the point that it arguably meets or beats the majority of specialized hardware being sold by proprietary Unix houses. When an IT manager looks at the initial expense of a Unix architecture to one based on Intel/Windows, they will figure a long-term if not immediate savings by converting.
Now, I'm sure there could be a nice argument over TCO, price / performance, true performance, etc. However, from my observations, these arguments aren't getting to the right people. I've seen several Unix-based labs (and some server architecture) replaced by Windows systems based on cost of the hardware alone.
Linux (and *BSD) competes directly against Windows. It does this by providing a way to leverage Window's biggest edge against the Unix market - commidity hardware. Without going to Windows. I've seen one place migrate from a Sun lab to a Linux one when the origional plan had been WinNT/2K.
By pushing the free OS, Big Blue can use it to sell consultancy, support and best of all, the leases on their fantastically expensive hardware, while at the same time undermining win2k based systems and harnessing the power of volunteering and crazed idealogue hobbyist developers.
IBM realized years ago that one of its major business areas (and profit generators) was service. Everything else, to include hardware sales and leases, was to one extent or another a chance to sell a service.
It's a masterstroke strategy, where the payoffs easilly make up for the $Billion Dollar outlay and there are beau-coup bucks more to be saved by phasing out the proprietary UNIX development.
If IBM makes its money from pushing hardware and selling service, why bother with producing an OS? It's a revenue sink. Leverage what else is out there.
But before we get too carried up with harnessing the power of idealogues, keep in mind that IBM is also contributing to Linux. Sure - it may be less than the whole. But then, that's the idea.
This sounds all too eerily similiar to Microsoft's Linux FUD from a few years ago.
From Day One of the SCO legal shenanigans, people have been noticing simularities between Microsoft's anti-Linux FUD and SCO's statements. The obvious conclusion has been that Microsoft was either coaching or directing SCO's campaign ("licensing fees" from Microsoft helped advance this theory). While this is certainly a possibility, I think there is a better explanation.
SCO simply took a cue from Microsoft's playbook. Much of what Microsoft states (and SCO claims) resonates with various IT and business types. These folks either dislike the culture around Linux, are threatened ideologically or financially by the adoption of Linux, or simply do not understand it (or a combination thereof). SCO fits one or more of these.
SCO reads Microsoft's latest marketing. It rings true. Not only does it ring true, but it falls in line with a strategy they (while Caldera) had been working on. Or more accurately - it transforms the strategy from a product offering to an aggressive play for control.
I had thought about that. But ya know - SCO isn't after the same market. They don't sell hardware. They don't sell service. And it seems that they've all but given up on selling an OS. Heck. I'm not sure they actually DO sell anything.
Thus, IBM, with its army of Global Services integrators who earn money by selling services, would gain a tremendous advantage over all its competitors who earn money by selling UNIX licenses.
Huh. Just how much of, say, Sun or HP sales are attributed to sales of their Unix? Can you argue that buying their hardware is driven by the desire to run their version of OS? And what about the services linked to the sales of that hardware?
Now - how does this argument hash out against HP's Linux business? And Sun's rather cautious approuch towards Linux?
It seems that all the players involved are in the same market. They're just attacking that market in different ways; variations of a theme.
In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of even one open source product that IBM has released.
Haven't been paying attention to the SCO case, have you? Yea - I know it gets kind of hard to keep a focus on reality with SCO rambling on. But in there somewhere is that IBM has been making considerable technical contributions to Linux (whether those contributions were legal or not is... or at least at one point WAS... the question being put forward by SCO).
I grew up tracking the IBM antitrust news. IBM was cutthroat enough that I remember how Microsoft's geek-chic stature grew when they out-IBM'ed IBM.
Like the Star Wars fans quote... "There are always two: a master and an apprentice." Microsoft learned how to do business from IBM. Then perfected the technique.
What will be interesting is watching Microsoft follow IBM's history in its own way. Commoditization of hardware transformed IBM. What will commiditization of the OS do?
I am the only one in the office with any computer experience, which is as follows:
- About 15 years of 'practical' computer experience. - About 5 years professional experience as a desktop jockey and, later, as a Windows sysadmin. - I've installed a half-dozen UNIX (mostly BSD) servers for very, very small web sites, but never as a file/application server. - I've tried Linux on the desktop a few times, but gave up after a week of fighting with any number of typical desktop Linux problems (hardware support, package management, etc).
...
True, buying Windows means I can't afford the same hardware horsepower, and I may be stuck using a PC as a server (instead of a 'real' one), but I can fix 95% of it myself.
Let's look at the situation.
You're not qualified to administer a Linux environment. You probably don't want to bet a business on it without additional training or help.
But you do have experience with running a Windows environment. So you'll be able to handle that. Your choice will be pretty easy to make.
Of course - plenty of buisnesses consist of people without any IT experience on any platform. These folks will either need training or hire help. And in this day and age, finding help with Linux is not so hard.
This happened in countless scenarios that I've personally witnessed (after having been brought in to take over the maintenance once the business gets busy enough). This constant "linux is cheaper" chant is completely, yet unsurprisingly, ignorant of several factors above and beyond the actual purchase price.
The pitfall small businesses run in to is thinking that since they've used Windows at home, they can also manage to run a reliable Windows-based infrastructure at work. And sure - they may get it running at first. But they inevitably run in to a situation where they need to hire help. So much for avoiding the cost of hiring IT experience. This is the scenario that I have personally experienced (and been hired to handle) numerous times.
There is only one form of security for a publicly accessible interface: obscurity. What is a password? It is a piece of information that you know that someone else doesn't - it is obscurity.
A password is a secret. It is not obscurity.
Sure - you can argue the semantics of it and do a rather good job at blurring the line between the two. However, in cryptographic and security circles, the two have very distinct connotations.
Obscurity is more about hiding how a system functions. The usual issue with this approach is that keeping this much information hidden is difficult. It is also possible to begin figuring out details by carefully analyzing the function of the system. If a system relies on what can not be hidden (or remain hidden) to be secure, then it is depending on obscurity. And will likely fail.
A secret is a particular piece of information that can be kept hidden and not (easily) discovered. Usually the information is relatively compact - which aids in keeping it hidden. And analysis of the system involved will not reveal the secret.
This is not to say that a system that does not rely on obscurity will not have flaws.
Linux advocates decried this activity in the very same Slashdot story that has been the aparent basis of some of these "when Linux attacks" style articles. They continue to do so on each and every myDoom article. Furthermore, highly visible advocate personalities like Bruce Perens has also spoken against this style of action.
If their software can't censor internet access, then the majority of public schools and libraries can't use it.
Since when does MICROSOFT have to provide this functionality? There are plenty of products out there pushing this kind of software. If Microsoft is up against a "we need this for our library", then they can point to their "library solutions partners" and keep their hands clean of the whole mess.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
As if business, and especially IT, is not peppered with emotional aspects. Ever hear of phrases like "nobody has ever been fired for buying IBM?"
While testing for memory problems, I removed all my cards. When I added them back, my video card ended up in a different slot. windows 2k didn't care. BeOS didn't care. XFree86 locked up and made my entire linux system unusable.
Were you able to fix that yourself? Or did you have to call someone to get permission first?;)
If by "innovation" you mean "no ability to move windows above the top of the screen", "no way to disable the ugly Metacity animations", "no proper alphabetized keybindings for the main menu a la Windows 95", "no wireframe mode" (essential for networked X setups), and a zillion others...
This sounds more like issues with Metacity than GNOME. While Metacity may be the default window manager for GNOME environments, there are plenty of others that play nice with GNOME. Move to one of those.
Gimme IceWM any day. I can work 5x faster than any GNOME user with that...
Works with GNOME. There are even compile-time options (and associated binary packages) available to integrate the environment a bit more.
I have some nice bridges in various American cities for sale and we are also handling the pre-sale of some real state in the Moon and in Mars for Nasa.
Robyn Peterson's next article will cover how technophiles, many of them Linux fans and Slashdot readers, are now attempting to sell bridges they do not own and extra-terrestrial real estate.
SCO will attempt to gain maintenance contracts with many of the cities responsible for major bridges, claim ownership of the bridges, and then threaten legal action if Linux users do not pay a bridge resale fee.
I'd like to preface this whole post with agreeing that it very well could be a single Linux fan launching this attack for the very obvious reason of attacking SCO. Having said that, I have to take issue with some of the conclusions made to support the likelihood of this being the most likely possibility.
Since this virus is really just meant to hurt SCO, it's either someone who wants to discredit the OS movement or some single child-minded linux fan.
Are you sure the virus is just meant to hurt SCO? Note that like previous variations of this virus, it installs a back door (specifically the ability to execute supplied code and port forwarding). This same functionality has been used by spammers in the past (and indeed, the DoS portions of previous versions have targeted anti-spam sites).
I'd bet on the latter, simply because there's not that many "linux-haters" that are individuals and child-ish.
As the saying goes, "you must be new here." The Linux fanbase is not alone in its share of zealots and childish behavior.
A company like MS, as dirty as they can be, I don't believe would engage in this kind of criminal behavior.
Who said anything about MS? Bruce's comments mentioned SCO. And spammers. That's it.
Basically, virii are written by individuals for the most part, and I don't think an individual has much to gain from attacking OSS.
Google for "gobbles". There are plenty of folks who would love to take a swipe at Open Source (or specific groups under that banner). And why not. They're just as tempting a target as anything else that gains notoriety. After all, what would an individual gain from attacking... say... Microsoft?
In all likelihood, it *was* some ticked-off kid. Get ready for more blurring the lines of linux=illegal hacking=evil subculture=virii makers type articles and opinions.
You're on the money on that last bit. This will hand SCO more ammo to fling at the OSS community. And SCO will undoubtedly do their best to get it in the press and in front of Congress (which in turn is fodder for the unlikely possibility that this is SCO's own doing - they'll skuttle their own company for a buck, why not their own site?).
So what if this is not the work of a ticked off kid? Who would do this?
Again - this is a variant of previous malware. It is possible that someone got mad and just did the basic changes needed to vent their frustration. Or it could be from the same source as other recent attacks. And that source is undoubtedly some part of the spammer "industry" / community.
So why attack SCO? Bruce touched on one possibility - discredit a community that's been working hard to make spammers' operations difficult to maintain. Others have suggested it is an attempt to distract people from the virus' real intention - providing another fleet of zombie proxy machines. I've toyed with the idea that attacking SCO may appeal to the very ones who are usually cleaning up malware and the virus author hopes that these individuals would just let this one slip by.
In short, there are plenty of possibilities. And while the lone malcontent is still a very valid one, it is by no means the only likely candidate.
So far the anti-abortion movement has quite successfully managed to avoid the actions of this group becoming a blow to their own moral credibility.
A very interesting point. Even more interesting because I personally associate these actions very strongly with the anti-abortion movement. In my own perception, they have lost considerable moral ground with these actions - even if they are the actions of a very minor and fringe group.
This perception may be entirely unfair. But there it is. There may be something interesting to discover in it as I hash out why this perception exists (assuming it is inacurate).
One possible data point is the press. I've been exposed to news on clinic bombings, shootings, web sites with kill lists, harboring fugitives, etc. And I see these as activities wholely associated with the movement - whether that is accurate or not.
Whether Open Source get's tagged with being DoS vigilanties or not may rest entirely on how the tech and mainstream media picks up this story. So far, its been fairly quiet on the DoS aspect.
In other words, if you've got a million businessmen, and they all make random predictions, you're going to expect a couple of them to be right most of the time.
At the time the deal was made, many vendors shipped CP/M on slightly different Intel-based hardware. Gates just copied this operating system business model.
I'm thinking most of those machines were on the Zilog Z80. But in any case - you make an excellent point.
Which raises an interesting question - what would have happened if Digital Research would have been more interested in porting CP/M to IBM's new microcomputer? IBM wouldn't have turned to Microsoft (who in turn wouldn't have done its deal to aquire QDOS - the basis for MSDOS).
But it gets even more interesting. The reason QDOS existed was because the company that employed Tim Paterson, QDOS' author, had a line of 8088 (same processor as IBM's PC offering) and later 8086 computers that needed an OS. And Digital Research had been very slow to move CP/M to the new chips (perhapse DR wasn't simply snubbing IBM after all). Does the current environment exist because Digital Research was too slow?
Another side note - QDOS was remarkably like CP/M (even mimicking a large portion of CP/M's APIs). Interesting how a small OS that behaved like a much more well-known and respected OS was a major part in shaking up the entire computer industry. Seems that there are echos of that theme today.
What accomplishments have arisen? Computers running software whose price/performance is fantastic? One of the easiest-to-develop-for video game consoles ever? Highly capable web servers that run some of the busiest sites--Dell.com, Nasdaq.com, MSNBC.com? Software conformity (and all the positives and negatives that result)?
Forget this list. Like a lot of "you owe Microsoft" style posts, it consists of accomplishments that are debatable either because their accuracy or whether they really stand out above their competition.
Microsoft's (as both a separate entity and alter-ego to Bill Gates) real contribution is in its history. Once again, Microsoft advocates often miss the mark by starting their list with "Internet for the masses" or the beginnings of Windows (with both points being dubious). It goes further back than that.
Microsoft's biggest contribution to computing is being a conduit for the process of making computer hardware a commodity. Kind of an odd turn of events since they were entirely a software company at this point. And likely more accidental than planned.
At this point in history, microcomputers were coming in to their own. They were no longer toys for hobbyists but rather important business tools. It hadn't taken long for IBM to notice that a market they had resoundingly ignored was quickly growing. IBM backpedaled and rushed out their own entry - the IBM PC. It was such a success in the business market that soon became a defacto standard. It might be worth pointing out that in IBM's rush to market, their IBM-PC product was heavily dependent on off-the-shelf components and and a licensed operating system from a small outfit based in New Mexico.
Enter Compaq. Compaq was the first to produce a legal IBM-PC clone in their Compaq Portable product (although not the first clone to market or first "portable" computer). This was done through a meticulous and expensive reverse engineering process. This was a necessary step since the hardware involved was available but the underpinnings of the IBM-PC, its BIOS, was not. The investment paid off - Compaq had a fully functional clone which launched the company to becoming one of computing's major players.
However, Compaq's success would have been questionable if it wasn't for Microsoft. The reason to go through this tedious reverse engineering was to create a machine that functioned just like an IBM-PC. The BIOS was one piece. The operating system was another. But unlike previous microcomputer products, the OS was not owned by the manufacturer. Compaq licensed the same OS, Microsoft's DOS, that ran on the IBM-PC.
I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates foresaw this turn of events. It is very likely that he simply saw software as being as important as hardware, that the microcomputer would take off, and that getting a portion of each IBM sale would lead to more profit than an outright buyout of DOS. Or maybe Bill reflected on their success with BASIC and did, in fact, see a day when their OS could be licensed in the same manner.
In any case, Compaq was the first of many. More clones came to market. This challenged IBM's product and lead to a situation where the "IBM-PC" became a compatibility standard as much as an available product. Clone companies continued to compete on price and features as the "IBM-PC" market shifted away from IBM's proprietary product to a commodity.
And Microsoft collected a fee for each "IBM-PC" sold.
There are a couple interesting points worth stressing here.
IBM began this process, albeit unintentionally, by relying on off-the-shelf parts that any other manufacturer could also purchase. IBM then attempted to protect their product with proprietary firmware. There are some echos of this behavior in today's computing environment.
Microsoft rode the wave of the hardware market becoming a commodity. Whether this was luck or not might be open to some debate but they
The local Randall's (very much like Albertson's and Publix) used to do this. Then they took away the cashier cards. I noticed one evening that the two people in front of me and the one guy behind me ringing up some beer all claimed to have left their card at home. I suspect the cashier cards got pulled because nobody was using their own cards.
Slashdot Mirror
A big piece of this Microsoft threat is the hardware. Microsoft has linked their offering to commodity hardware. Over the years, this commodity platform has been increasing in performance - to the point that it arguably meets or beats the majority of specialized hardware being sold by proprietary Unix houses. When an IT manager looks at the initial expense of a Unix architecture to one based on Intel/Windows, they will figure a long-term if not immediate savings by converting.
Now, I'm sure there could be a nice argument over TCO, price / performance, true performance, etc. However, from my observations, these arguments aren't getting to the right people. I've seen several Unix-based labs (and some server architecture) replaced by Windows systems based on cost of the hardware alone.
Linux (and *BSD) competes directly against Windows. It does this by providing a way to leverage Window's biggest edge against the Unix market - commidity hardware. Without going to Windows. I've seen one place migrate from a Sun lab to a Linux one when the origional plan had been WinNT/2K.
IBM realized years ago that one of its major business areas (and profit generators) was service. Everything else, to include hardware sales and leases, was to one extent or another a chance to sell a service.
If IBM makes its money from pushing hardware and selling service, why bother with producing an OS? It's a revenue sink. Leverage what else is out there.
But before we get too carried up with harnessing the power of idealogues, keep in mind that IBM is also contributing to Linux. Sure - it may be less than the whole. But then, that's the idea.
Friend of mine had WinNT running on some Alpha box. He was rather proud of it. And I have to admit, I thought it was kind of neat too.
"So what can you do with it?" I ask.
"Well. Not much. I don't have any apps that'll run on this."
Cool factor quickly ages. I think the only time I saw it running from then on was to act as a heater for his office.
From Day One of the SCO legal shenanigans, people have been noticing simularities between Microsoft's anti-Linux FUD and SCO's statements. The obvious conclusion has been that Microsoft was either coaching or directing SCO's campaign ("licensing fees" from Microsoft helped advance this theory). While this is certainly a possibility, I think there is a better explanation.
SCO simply took a cue from Microsoft's playbook. Much of what Microsoft states (and SCO claims) resonates with various IT and business types. These folks either dislike the culture around Linux, are threatened ideologically or financially by the adoption of Linux, or simply do not understand it (or a combination thereof). SCO fits one or more of these.
SCO reads Microsoft's latest marketing. It rings true. Not only does it ring true, but it falls in line with a strategy they (while Caldera) had been working on. Or more accurately - it transforms the strategy from a product offering to an aggressive play for control.
I had thought about that. But ya know - SCO isn't after the same market. They don't sell hardware. They don't sell service. And it seems that they've all but given up on selling an OS. Heck. I'm not sure they actually DO sell anything.
But they're sure trying to peddle something.
Huh. Just how much of, say, Sun or HP sales are attributed to sales of their Unix? Can you argue that buying their hardware is driven by the desire to run their version of OS? And what about the services linked to the sales of that hardware?
Now - how does this argument hash out against HP's Linux business? And Sun's rather cautious approuch towards Linux?
It seems that all the players involved are in the same market. They're just attacking that market in different ways; variations of a theme.
Haven't been paying attention to the SCO case, have you? Yea - I know it gets kind of hard to keep a focus on reality with SCO rambling on. But in there somewhere is that IBM has been making considerable technical contributions to Linux (whether those contributions were legal or not is... or at least at one point WAS... the question being put forward by SCO).
Like the Star Wars fans quote... "There are always two: a master and an apprentice." Microsoft learned how to do business from IBM. Then perfected the technique.
What will be interesting is watching Microsoft follow IBM's history in its own way. Commoditization of hardware transformed IBM. What will commiditization of the OS do?
Someone should explain to SCO's discovery team that
Let's look at the situation.
You're not qualified to administer a Linux environment. You probably don't want to bet a business on it without additional training or help.
But you do have experience with running a Windows environment. So you'll be able to handle that. Your choice will be pretty easy to make.
Of course - plenty of buisnesses consist of people without any IT experience on any platform. These folks will either need training or hire help. And in this day and age, finding help with Linux is not so hard.
The pitfall small businesses run in to is thinking that since they've used Windows at home, they can also manage to run a reliable Windows-based infrastructure at work. And sure - they may get it running at first. But they inevitably run in to a situation where they need to hire help. So much for avoiding the cost of hiring IT experience. This is the scenario that I have personally experienced (and been hired to handle) numerous times.
A password is a secret. It is not obscurity.
Sure - you can argue the semantics of it and do a rather good job at blurring the line between the two. However, in cryptographic and security circles, the two have very distinct connotations.
Obscurity is more about hiding how a system functions. The usual issue with this approach is that keeping this much information hidden is difficult. It is also possible to begin figuring out details by carefully analyzing the function of the system. If a system relies on what can not be hidden (or remain hidden) to be secure, then it is depending on obscurity. And will likely fail.
A secret is a particular piece of information that can be kept hidden and not (easily) discovered. Usually the information is relatively compact - which aids in keeping it hidden. And analysis of the system involved will not reveal the secret.
This is not to say that a system that does not rely on obscurity will not have flaws.
Hiding it? What - can't you read?
Linux advocates decried this activity in the very same Slashdot story that has been the aparent basis of some of these "when Linux attacks" style articles. They continue to do so on each and every myDoom article. Furthermore, highly visible advocate personalities like Bruce Perens has also spoken against this style of action.
...makes you think twice about those "pre-owned" PDAs you can get on eBay.
This is what happens when you're forced to try and navigate web sites by typing in URLs all the time.
Since when does MICROSOFT have to provide this functionality? There are plenty of products out there pushing this kind of software. If Microsoft is up against a "we need this for our library", then they can point to their "library solutions partners" and keep their hands clean of the whole mess.
As if business, and especially IT, is not peppered with emotional aspects. Ever hear of phrases like "nobody has ever been fired for buying IBM?"
Were you able to fix that yourself? Or did you have to call someone to get permission first?
Hmmm. Sally Struthers pitching GNOME. I was going to write out a parody script... but as I started, I realized that I couldn't stand the pain.
This sounds more like issues with Metacity than GNOME. While Metacity may be the default window manager for GNOME environments, there are plenty of others that play nice with GNOME. Move to one of those.
Works with GNOME. There are even compile-time options (and associated binary packages) available to integrate the environment a bit more.
Robyn Peterson's next article will cover how technophiles, many of them Linux fans and Slashdot readers, are now attempting to sell bridges they do not own and extra-terrestrial real estate.
SCO will attempt to gain maintenance contracts with many of the cities responsible for major bridges, claim ownership of the bridges, and then threaten legal action if Linux users do not pay a bridge resale fee.
Are you sure the virus is just meant to hurt SCO? Note that like previous variations of this virus, it installs a back door (specifically the ability to execute supplied code and port forwarding). This same functionality has been used by spammers in the past (and indeed, the DoS portions of previous versions have targeted anti-spam sites).
As the saying goes, "you must be new here." The Linux fanbase is not alone in its share of zealots and childish behavior.
Who said anything about MS? Bruce's comments mentioned SCO. And spammers. That's it.
Google for "gobbles". There are plenty of folks who would love to take a swipe at Open Source (or specific groups under that banner). And why not. They're just as tempting a target as anything else that gains notoriety. After all, what would an individual gain from attacking... say... Microsoft?
You're on the money on that last bit. This will hand SCO more ammo to fling at the OSS community. And SCO will undoubtedly do their best to get it in the press and in front of Congress (which in turn is fodder for the unlikely possibility that this is SCO's own doing - they'll skuttle their own company for a buck, why not their own site?).
So what if this is not the work of a ticked off kid? Who would do this?
Again - this is a variant of previous malware. It is possible that someone got mad and just did the basic changes needed to vent their frustration. Or it could be from the same source as other recent attacks. And that source is undoubtedly some part of the spammer "industry" / community.
So why attack SCO? Bruce touched on one possibility - discredit a community that's been working hard to make spammers' operations difficult to maintain. Others have suggested it is an attempt to distract people from the virus' real intention - providing another fleet of zombie proxy machines. I've toyed with the idea that attacking SCO may appeal to the very ones who are usually cleaning up malware and the virus author hopes that these individuals would just let this one slip by.
In short, there are plenty of possibilities. And while the lone malcontent is still a very valid one, it is by no means the only likely candidate.
A very interesting point. Even more interesting because I personally associate these actions very strongly with the anti-abortion movement. In my own perception, they have lost considerable moral ground with these actions - even if they are the actions of a very minor and fringe group.
This perception may be entirely unfair. But there it is. There may be something interesting to discover in it as I hash out why this perception exists (assuming it is inacurate).
One possible data point is the press. I've been exposed to news on clinic bombings, shootings, web sites with kill lists, harboring fugitives, etc. And I see these as activities wholely associated with the movement - whether that is accurate or not.
Whether Open Source get's tagged with being DoS vigilanties or not may rest entirely on how the tech and mainstream media picks up this story. So far, its been fairly quiet on the DoS aspect.
A million monkey-suits. It all makes sense.
I'm thinking most of those machines were on the Zilog Z80. But in any case - you make an excellent point.
Which raises an interesting question - what would have happened if Digital Research would have been more interested in porting CP/M to IBM's new microcomputer? IBM wouldn't have turned to Microsoft (who in turn wouldn't have done its deal to aquire QDOS - the basis for MSDOS).
But it gets even more interesting. The reason QDOS existed was because the company that employed Tim Paterson, QDOS' author, had a line of 8088 (same processor as IBM's PC offering) and later 8086 computers that needed an OS. And Digital Research had been very slow to move CP/M to the new chips (perhapse DR wasn't simply snubbing IBM after all). Does the current environment exist because Digital Research was too slow?
Another side note - QDOS was remarkably like CP/M (even mimicking a large portion of CP/M's APIs). Interesting how a small OS that behaved like a much more well-known and respected OS was a major part in shaking up the entire computer industry. Seems that there are echos of that theme today.
Forget this list. Like a lot of "you owe Microsoft" style posts, it consists of accomplishments that are debatable either because their accuracy or whether they really stand out above their competition.
Microsoft's (as both a separate entity and alter-ego to Bill Gates) real contribution is in its history. Once again, Microsoft advocates often miss the mark by starting their list with "Internet for the masses" or the beginnings of Windows (with both points being dubious). It goes further back than that.
Microsoft's biggest contribution to computing is being a conduit for the process of making computer hardware a commodity. Kind of an odd turn of events since they were entirely a software company at this point. And likely more accidental than planned.
At this point in history, microcomputers were coming in to their own. They were no longer toys for hobbyists but rather important business tools. It hadn't taken long for IBM to notice that a market they had resoundingly ignored was quickly growing. IBM backpedaled and rushed out their own entry - the IBM PC. It was such a success in the business market that soon became a defacto standard. It might be worth pointing out that in IBM's rush to market, their IBM-PC product was heavily dependent on off-the-shelf components and and a licensed operating system from a small outfit based in New Mexico.
Enter Compaq. Compaq was the first to produce a legal IBM-PC clone in their Compaq Portable product (although not the first clone to market or first "portable" computer). This was done through a meticulous and expensive reverse engineering process. This was a necessary step since the hardware involved was available but the underpinnings of the IBM-PC, its BIOS, was not. The investment paid off - Compaq had a fully functional clone which launched the company to becoming one of computing's major players.
However, Compaq's success would have been questionable if it wasn't for Microsoft. The reason to go through this tedious reverse engineering was to create a machine that functioned just like an IBM-PC. The BIOS was one piece. The operating system was another. But unlike previous microcomputer products, the OS was not owned by the manufacturer. Compaq licensed the same OS, Microsoft's DOS, that ran on the IBM-PC.
I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates foresaw this turn of events. It is very likely that he simply saw software as being as important as hardware, that the microcomputer would take off, and that getting a portion of each IBM sale would lead to more profit than an outright buyout of DOS. Or maybe Bill reflected on their success with BASIC and did, in fact, see a day when their OS could be licensed in the same manner.
In any case, Compaq was the first of many. More clones came to market. This challenged IBM's product and lead to a situation where the "IBM-PC" became a compatibility standard as much as an available product. Clone companies continued to compete on price and features as the "IBM-PC" market shifted away from IBM's proprietary product to a commodity.
And Microsoft collected a fee for each "IBM-PC" sold.
There are a couple interesting points worth stressing here.
IBM began this process, albeit unintentionally, by relying on off-the-shelf parts that any other manufacturer could also purchase. IBM then attempted to protect their product with proprietary firmware. There are some echos of this behavior in today's computing environment.
Microsoft rode the wave of the hardware market becoming a commodity. Whether this was luck or not might be open to some debate but they
The local Randall's (very much like Albertson's and Publix) used to do this. Then they took away the cashier cards. I noticed one evening that the two people in front of me and the one guy behind me ringing up some beer all claimed to have left their card at home. I suspect the cashier cards got pulled because nobody was using their own cards.