

A Brief History of Microsoft FUD (2006) - gizzlon
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html

======
trotsky
I've been a linux user since '94. What he sees as FUD, I just see as
marketing. Do we expect competitors to not say bad and questionable things
about their rivals? It seems to be a pretty common tactic across many
industries.

Microsoft: Linux is slow, illegal, communist, unreliable.

Linux advocates: Microsoft is slow, horribly insecure, crashes all the time.

Apple: Windows is for stupid people who aren't like you, hard to use,
insecure.

Most of them have varying amounts of real truth attached to them but generally
overlook the big picture or just frame it in a way that makes them look best.

In addition, most of the talking points work off of the previous age, things
that were much more true some considerable time ago.

------
gizzlon
A kind-of-follow-up is at H-news: [http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-
I-was-wrong-about-...](http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-I-was-wrong-
about-Microsoft-1218798.html) (same author)

~~~
evangineer
The link in the parent is really important. It shows that Microsoft has been
successfully lobbying for new protectionist legislation that only really
benefits them against organisations using open source in their supply chain.

~~~
blub
From what I've read, it only applies to orgs that use pirated MS software, so
where did you draw the conclusion about "using open source in their supply
chain"?

~~~
sagarun
Did you forget to notice

"So how might this apply to open source? Well, consider a US carrier offering
an Android handset: under the new laws, they would effectively be required to
prove that not only did they not use any pirated Microsoft software, but that
none of their suppliers did either. And given that many of those suppliers are
likely to be in China, where piracy is not completely unknown, the chances
that at least one supplier is in fact using the odd dodgy copy of Windows or
Office is probably somewhat close to 1.

But it goes much further than Android. One of the biggest growth areas for
Linux is consumer electronics. Many of the most exciting low-cost digital
consumer products are running stripped-down and customised versions of Linux
at their heart – and not Microsoft's Windows CE. Again, retailers and
importers of those Linux-based systems would need to be able to prove that not
a single one of their suppliers had a single pirated copy of Microsoft
products anywhere. If they couldn't, Microsoft could effectively block the
import of those products into the US states that have passed this new
legislation."

~~~
blub
First of all, I agree that the legislation is absurd - just to get this out of
the way.

Your quote seems like a reasonable line of thought, but it's not exactly
targeting open source, it's targeting users of pirated software. It could lead
to some open source collateral damage, but OTOH it could lead to suppliers
switching to opensource software. Why are they running pirated Windows anyway?

~~~
evangineer
You have to ask what Microsoft's original intent was in lobbying for this
legislation in the first place.

I can guarantee that Microsoft isn't going to pursue this sort of legal action
against companies that are building products on Windows & Windows Phone 7.

It is yet another attempt on their part to impose a tax on companies that
aren't building on their platforms & the prime target is clearly companies
building on open source platforms specifically Linux & Android.

------
random42
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
win"

-Mahatma Gandhi

~~~
blub
Why should OSS win when it can do well competing with proprietary software?
Either party winning is a loss for me as a software user.

~~~
reemrevnivek
If 'OSS' wins, that doesn't mean the end of competition. Rather, it means the
beginning of competition between the numerous distributions, window managers,
package managers, etc.

Fortunately, these are almost all based on the same kernel, which will allow
for better interoperability and cross-platform software (cross-platform
meaning Ubuntu/Red Hat/BSD/Mac etc, not Windows/*nix variant). OSS is a
philosophy, not a monopolistic party.

Or, possibly, the beginning of an Apple-dominated monopoly.

~~~
blub
I think the competition between proprietary and OSS is more productive, as
Windows/Mac and Linux complement each-other better than two Linux distros
would for example. Furthermore, there are interesting features/research
opportunities that simply aren't interesting for either single party.

In my experience the kernel is not such a big issue when it comes to cross-
platform software. In fact, having a cross-platform core is doable right now
with reasonable effort. The problems are ironically related to the different
desktop managers, package managers and so on. :)

------
ptbello
Should be complemented by a brief hystory of Steve Ballmer tantrums:
[http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_c...](http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_chair_at_fing_google)
[http://www.gearfuse.com/ballmer-lashes-out-at-microsoft-
empl...](http://www.gearfuse.com/ballmer-lashes-out-at-microsoft-employed-
iphone-user-threatens-to-smash-iphone/)

~~~
skore
Very nice comments in the first article from September 2005:

 _"If Google is just a house of cards, what's he so worried about??"_

 _"Ballmer is not worried about google. that's WHY he said he would burry
them. granted google will be a strong contender against microsoft.but do you
Really think the microsoft empire will lose?! doubt it."_

 _"Like wow... that's amazing. I guess Google is really going to do an OS and
a browser."_

 _"I'm scared to say it, but Google doesn't actually have a stable, reliable
income at this point. Their stock offering and Google Earth Pro isn't enough
revenue to survive an all out war with M$."_

 _"I find the Google brand advocates funny. Google is indeed a house of card.
And the reason is simple - if Google ceases to exist tommorrow, it would not
matter to me or the majority of the Internet. There are plenty of 'search'
technology out there."_

 _"Google is just a bunch of PhDs trying to screw some money and get laid.
They have no product, no income, no long term strategy and no future. Google
is possibly last but deffinitely biggest dot com baloon about to do the
typical dotcom boooooom... I just imagine Booom logo in Google colour
letters."_

 _"As much as I adore Linux and hate Microsoft everybody here is wayy off. How
can you say that a search engine is the next 'holy grail' of computing? Who
actually believes that Google will come out with an OS?"_

 _"As much as I've seen AJAX hyped it's not a desktop app replacement by any
means. Ever had Google Earth time out and just go to la la land? Ever seen it
be as quick and responsive as Open Office or Word?"_

That's barely 6 years... oh how the world has changed...

------
JonoW
Interesting that this article is from 2006. Whats happened since then?

~~~
praptak
See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2408755> by the same author.

~~~
bruce511
The author seems to really dislike Microsoft. He's obviously not alone, but
it's a pity when the article is clouded with so much obvious bias.

For example, he complains about MS defending their patents, and sees this as a
direct attach on Open Source. Other than the fact that Android is sort-of-
open, there doesn't seem to be a relationship. As he points out the patent
problem is the fault of the USPO, not MS. Yet still spends half the article on
this topic. (To call MS out for patent litigation is completely absurd - the
list of companies currently litigating over patents is really, really long.)

Exhibit B has to do with MS lobbying for favorable legislation. Again this is
pretty much standard practice with large companies these days. Sure it's dumb
legislation, but blame the politicians for failing their job, not the company
for doing theirs. again the direct link to "attacking open source" seems weak.

So here you have a company indulging in activities that pretty much all the
major players are doing these days. Patent protection and lobbying are not
exactly MS invented tactics. Both exist because the legislative system allows
for them.

~~~
bad_user

        He's obviously not alone, but it's a pity when the
        article is clouded with so much obvious bias
    

Everybody is biased. It is human nature. What you need to do is to consider
both sides and choose your own (biased) opinions.

    
    
        MS defending their patents
    

Patents in question are as trivial as Amazon's one-click patent. No matter the
feelings you have on IP, the government shouldn't grant monopolies on
ideas/processes that can come from multiple independent sources.

    
    
        as a direct attach on Open Source
    

Actually it is far worse than that.

Microsoft is attacking all its competitors that are perceived as threats, not
by means of healthy competition and innovation -- but by cloning products,
distributing those products by means of its monopoly, actively seeking even
the dumbest of patents, changing legislature in their favor, and also suing
and threatening the smaller companies that can't fight back (like Motorola and
HTC).

If this trend continues, sooner or later everybody will pay a Microsoft-tax,
i.e. Microsoft will be the ultimate patent troll.

    
    
         the list of companies currently litigating over 
         patents is really, really long
    

Yes it is, but as far as patents portfolios go, Microsoft is almost as big as
IBM -- few companies are like that; few companies are convicted monopolies;
few companies are in a position to threaten the whole software industry.

    
    
        this is pretty much standard practice with large 
        companies these days
    

Just because it is the status-quo, that doesn't make it right, or morally
justified, or healthy for the economy as a whole. It's a complete non-sequitur
and doesn't make sense.

    
    
        Sure it's dumb legislation, but blame the 
        politicians for failing their job
    

Actually I blame the people that voted for those politicians. Those
politicians are only doing what was promised in their campaigns -- and it's
the people's fault that politicians need big and costly campaigns to get
elected, making them seek sponsors in return for favors.

    
    
         Patent protection and lobbying are not exactly 
         MS invented tactics. Both exist because the 
         legislative system allows for them.
    

If a bully from your school kicks you in your balls, that makes it right
because other bullies do it too?

Great way of pointing out how much the situation sucks, btw. Yes, it's not
Microsoft's fault, it's the fault of their customers that tolerate, excuse or
applaud such behavior, without thinking that this hurts the economy and
ultimately everybody.

And btw, in this reply I haven't mentioned "open-source" once, as this is a
problem far bigger than that, IMHO.

~~~
bruce511
You're exactly agreeing with me here. These are bad practices, and we should
rail against the practices themselves. The root of the problem is however, in
a different place.

Unfortunately the author writes the article from a point-of-view that implies
that this is a "Microsoft versus Open-Source" issue. This is a pity because it
allows people to choose sides based on their personal view of Microsoft. It
hides the real issue, which is that the Patent system is broken, and the
legislative system is bought-and-paid-for by companies who can effectively
afford to buy an election.

Patent litigation, and the threat thereof affects software companies in
numerous ways quite independently of their open, or closed, source nature.

Company-favored-legislation is rife across all industries.

My point is not that it's ok for MS to behave like this - my point is that to
pitch the problem as being caused by MS allows the issue to be clouded - for
example should we picket outside Redmond, or the USPO in Washington?

