EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.18.09

Microsoft’s Jim Allchin: “I am Scared [of GNU/Linux]” (Analysts Cartel Part II)

Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Windows at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In Part III: How Microsoft Manufactures Statistics with Gartner|IDC

THIS IS the second part of a short series that began here. It reveals the ways in which IDC and Gartner interact with Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Comes vs. Microsoft Exhibit PX07168 [PDF] from September 2002 shows why a ‘study’ against GNU/Linux is being manufactured.

Microsoft’s Jim Allchin, for example, states in this debrief that “we are not on a path to win against Linux” where he mentions (in point 6) the absolute necessity to “get a study done”. To quote in context, “We MUST get a TOC study done. Cost is a first thing on everyone’s mind right now given the economy and pressure on cost reduction. I am not sure what the final decision was on the IDC study. We REALLY need some here. I think billv/bob own this. If the IDC report won’t cut it, then we get another one done.”

Among those involved in this correspondence we find Paul Flessner, who wrote about Dell’s GNU/Linux dealings: “We should whack them, we should make sure they understand our value.” Brian Valentine is there too and so is Bill Veghte of the anti-GNU/Linux initiatives [1, 2, 3].

The subject of this discussion is — as plainly put in the subject line — “Linux”.

Jim Allchin on Novell

The quote above is very real by the way. Allchin is chanting about “Facts”, repeatedly (as in “Get the Facts”). Here is how it starts:

My conclusion: We are not on a path to win against Linux We must change some things and we must do it immediately. The current white papers, etc. are too high level and they are not going to cut it. Here are specific actions that I have concluded that we must take.

1. bill’s team must get a couple more hot resources assigned to it immediately who can do a tear down of Linux.

Jeff Jones (of Microsoft) has just had the IDC/IDG-owned magazines [1, 2] publish his security FUD. That was yesterday (an attack on Firefox) and here in this letter we find Allchin writing about the very same lies-based methodology that’s so often criticised (counting and aggregating all packages that are peripheral to the operating system):

3. We need a comparison of the security issues published from some place like CERT for Linux vs Windows 2000 or Windows XP. We need to be sure to count all the component pieces of Linux (e.g., apache, samba, navigator, etc.).

Then come more FUD about having to recompile applications in GNU/Linux:

4. We need the technical resource / strategy resource to look for fundamental issues about Linux that customers might not know. One that I thought of while on the trip that I used dealt with the fact you need to recompile your apps, etc when a new release of Linux comes out. I don’t think anyone wants to recompile their apps when they are running them in production, etc. I am sure if we put serious IQ to the situation we can think of many issues.

Check this patent FUD out:

5. We need someone to tear down the indemnification offered from RedHat and IBM to customers. We need to understand exactly the risk a customer is under if a patent lawsuit happens and Linux is challenged. I’d like Dan to own this. There MUST be risks to customers that are being passed on. I want this understood precisely. We need to get the license from IBM given to customers and investigate.

Here is an important bit:

6. We MUST get a TOC study done. Cost is a first thing on everyone’s mind right now given the economy and pressure on cost reduction. I am not sure what the final decision was on the IDC study. We REALLY need some here. I think billv/bob own this. If the IDC report won’t cut it, then we get another one done. Some customers know that Linux isn’t really free, but we need to help the other customers see this.

According to Allchin, “Customers are very disappointed (outright angry!) in how our apps interfere with each other.” They need to dig some dirt on GNU/Linux, so someone is assigned for the job.

8. We need a paper explaining how we do scale up. Linux is getting in some places based on the fact that customers are trying to scale up and they can’t run applications independently/safely on Windows. I will be writing mail about this separately. The paper would explain how to do it on Windows. Customers are very smart about the problems (eg., registry issues, lack of support from 3rd parties if more than a single app is running on the system (even though it works), etc.). We need a story here. I think this has to be someone as smart as davidds, I am not sure who should own this. It is possible that someone Iike blaing should do this. Maybe someone in Paulfle’s team can do it. We must address MSFT server products in this (e.g, sql, exchange, etc.). Customers are very disappointed (outright angry!) in how our apps interfere with each other.

Microsoft needs to manufacture some “quick facts” because, according to Allchin, “The paper [against GNU/Linux that] we have today as I said was laughed at in one place.”

10.. We need to put together a single short paper (just a couple of pages – maybe a single sheet) for a leave behind for customers of the 10 questions that they should consider before adopting Linux This should be based on the learnings we get from some of the items above and well as others that we find. These should be as hard hitting as we can be, BUT they need to be factual based, We should be thinking about howto put things like Red Hat’s server price In it to show where it’s going, etc, The paper we have today as I said was laughed at in one place. (I am not sure what one they had seen,) I think Billy needs to figure out who should own this I think someone like vlcg would be great.

Jim Allchin then admits that he is scared when he says under the subject line “Linux”:

I am scared.

The third and last part of this series will give most of the ‘beef’ of this story. The correspondence, in full, is below.


Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit px07168, as text


From: Jim Allchin
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:20 PM
To: Brian Valentine, Paul Flessner; Bill Veghte, Bob Kefly; Eric Rudder, Dan Neault
Cc: Michele Freed
Subject: Linux

I am travelling as you know. I have had many VAP round tables (both partner and not), met with many enterprise customers, had many roundtables with the field – both sales roundtable and technical roundtables. I also met with the US seminar group I have seen a tot of customers this week.

My conclusion: We are not on a path to win against Linux We must change some things and we must do it immediately. The current white papers, etc. are too high level and they are not going to cut it. Here are specific actions that I have concluded that we must take.

1. bill’s team must get a couple more hot resources assigned to it immediately who can do a tear down of Linux. This resources must help do the items I outline below together with other teams. I am not sure who might be best to assign here. Michele and I have been brainstorming and we don’t have a long list. One person that I think we could consider recruiting to help would be vicg. Another person might be brian hall. These guys aren’t super technical, but they are both good at distilling the essence and packaging stuff. Vic would be better than brian, but I wanted to throw both names out. I would only pick one of them. Just as importantly we need a kynl type of person – someone very technical. I insist that we find someone within a week and assign them on this for the next 2 months. I am not sure who to pick on the technical side. Once you read below I would like some suggestions. I think can be done in 2 months.

2. We need a paper which outlines technically how our system (kernel, web service, file server) is better. I think we have Mark R signed up to write this (robs was supposed to engage him on this). This paper needs to cover things like the facts that we have a preemptive kernel, asychronous I/O, etc Facts… that go to the core of why windows is different and Linux is old unix. Facts. I would have the technical person help with this. There was a technical wrlteup a few years ago by Mark in Windows NT Magazine. We need more on this.

3. We need a comparison of the security issues published from some place like CERT for Linux vs Windows 2000 or Windows XP. We need to be sure to count all the component pieces of Linux (e.g., apache, samba, navigator, etc.). This needs to be fact based. It should be short and sweet. A table would be great. I think Mikenash owns this.

4. We need the technical resource / strategy resource to look for fundamental issues about Linux that customers might not know. One that I thought of while on the trip that I used dealt with the fact you need to recompile your apps, etc when a new release of Linux comes out. I don’t think anyone wants to recompile their apps when they are running them in production, etc. I am sure if we put serious IQ to the situation we can think of many issues.

5. We need someone to tear down the indemnification offered from RedHat and IBM to customers. We need to understand exactly the risk a customer is under if a patent lawsuit happens and Linux is challenged. I’d like Dan to own this. There MUST be risks to customers that are being passed on. I want this understood precisely. We need to get the license from IBM given to customers and investigate.

6. We MUST get a TOC study done. Cost is a first thing on everyone’s mind right now given the economy and pressure on cost reduction. I am not sure what the final decision was on the IDC study. We REALLY need some here. I think billv/bob own this. If the IDC report won’t cut it, then we get another one done. Some customers know that Linux isn’t really free, but we need to help the other customers see this.

7. We need a paper (which we may already have) on the productively gains possible on with .NET development over php and j2ee. This must have examples of how productive development is, performance, and operational capability. Eric owns getting this down if it isn’t already.

MS-CC-RN 000001039342
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL


8. We need a paper explaining how we do scale up. Linux is getting in some places based on the fact that customers are trying to scale up and they can’t run applications independently/safely on Windows. I will be writing mail about this separately. The paper would explain how to do it on Windows. Customers are very smart about the problems (eg., registry issues, lack of support from 3rd parties if more than a single app is running on the system (even though it works), etc.). We need a story here. I think this has to be someone as smart as davidds, I am not sure who should own this. It is possible that someone like blaing should do this. Maybe someone in Paulfle’s team can do it. We must address MSFT server products in this (e.g, sql, exchange, etc.). Customers are very disappointed (outright angry!) in how our apps interfere with each other.

9. I think we need a paper on SFU and interop. Customers believe that unix systems are more compatible with each other and more interoperable, I was stunned at the number of customers who had no idea about what SFU could do, We must promote this much more. Billv owns ensuring this is done.

10.. We need to put together a single short paper (just a couple of pages – maybe a single sheet) for a leave behind for customers of the 10 questions that they should consider before adopting Linux This should be based on the learnings we get from some of the items above and well as others that we find. These should be as hard hitting as we can be, BUT they need to be factual based, We should be thinking about howto put things like Red Hat’s server price In it to show where it’s going, etc, The paper we have today as I said was laughed at in one place. (I am not sure what one they had seen,) I think Billy needs to figure out who should own this I think someone like vlcg would be great.

_________

I know there is a lot in this email, I am sorry. It is serious guys, The field does not feel supported by us. We are not giving them what they need to win

Bill/Paul: I need to ask you to take ownership of driving this ahead What I want to see is a package including ALL of these items that we can provide to the field within 2 months (MAX). I am scared. Again.. I want the two people assigned within a week. I want to know who the people are. Eric please help thinking about who the right people are. Please remember NO marketing. Facts. No anger toward Linux. Just facts. Please understand this isn’t up for discussion. I want some solid people assigned ASAP.

I would like a review in 1 month on the progress on this.

thanks,

jim

5/6/2005

MS-CC-RN 000001039343
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL


Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

5 Comments

  1. Paul Gaskin said,

    January 19, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Gravatar

    That’s hilarious.

  2. paul (the unverified) said,

    January 20, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Gravatar

    Jim is really up on his “management speak.”

    This impresses me as though he has compiled a nice list of m$’s weakest points and all of their misinterpretations/misrepresentations re GNU/Linux.

    I do have to give him credit for one of his closing comments. “Please remember NO marketing. Facts. No anger toward Linux. Just facts.” I wonder if m$ really knows how to communicate like that though. I think that they’ve been pitching FUD for so long that nothing else can come out of their mouths. I imagine first they’ll mix up a new batch of kool-aid and then I guess we’ll see.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 20, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Gravatar

    There’s more coming from Allchin in parts 4 and 5.

  4. Shane Coyle said,

    January 20, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Gravatar

    I love all of this stuff.

    We need a paper which outlines technically how our system (kernel, web service, file server) is better. I think we have Mark R signed up to write this (robs was supposed to engage him on this). This paper needs to cover things like the facts that we have a preemptive kernel, asychronous I/O, etc Facts… that go to the core of why windows is different and Linux is old unix. Facts. I would have the technical person help with this. There was a technical wrlteup a few years ago by Mark in Windows NT Magazine. We need more on this.

    Mark R? Russinovich? as in sysinternals that was bought up by MS and he was named a fellow or something a few years later?

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 20, 2009 at 10:26 am

    Gravatar

    Yeah! I thought exactly that when I read it.

What Else is New


  1. Links 20/6/2018: Qt 5.11.1, Oracle Solaris 11.3 SRU 33, HHVM 3.27.0, Microsoft Helping ICE

    Links for the day



  2. Patent Extremists Are Unable to Find Federal Circuit Cases That Help Them Mislead on Alice

    Patent extremists prefer talking about Mayo but not Alice when it comes to 35 U.S.C. § 101; Broadcom is meanwhile going on a 'fishing expedition', looking to profit from patents by calling for embargo through the ITC



  3. What Use Are 10 Million Patents That Are of Low Quality in a Patent Office Controlled by the Patent 'Industry'?

    The patent maximalists are celebrating overgranting; the USPTO, failing to heed the warning from patent courts, continues issuing far too many patents and a new paper from Mark Lemley and Robin Feldman offers a dose of sobering reality



  4. The Eastern District of Texas is Where Asian Companies/Patents/Trolls Still Go After TC Heartland

    Proxies of Longhorn IP and KAIST (Katana Silicon Technologies LLC and KAIST IP US LLC, respectively) roam Texas in pursuit of money of out nothing but patents and aggressive litigation; there's also a Microsoft connection



  5. EPO Insiders Correct the Record of Benoît Battistelli’s Tyranny and Abuse of Law: “Legal Harassment and Retaliation”

    Battistelli’s record, as per EPO-FLIER 37, is a lot worse than the Office cares to tell stakeholders, who are already complaining about decline in patent quality



  6. Articles About a Unitary Patent System Are Lies and Marketing From Law Firms With 'Lawsuits Lust'

    Team UPC has grown louder with its lobbying efforts this past week; the same lies are being repeated without much of a challenge and press ownership plays a role in that



  7. The Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Causes Frivolous Lawsuits That Only Lawyers Profit From

    The European Patent Office (EPO) will continue granting low-quality European Patents under the leadership of the Battistelli-'nominated' Frenchman, António Campinos; this is bad news for science and technology as that quite likely means a lot more lawsuits without merit (which only lawyers profit from)



  8. What Battistelli's Workers Think of His Latest EPO Propaganda

    "Modernising the EPO" is what Battistelli calls a plethora of human rights abuses and corruption



  9. Links 19/6/2018: Total War: WARHAMMER II Confirmed for GNU/Linux, DragonFlyBSD 5.2.2 Released

    Links for the day



  10. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  11. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)



  12. Diversity at the EPO

    Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"



  13. Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

    Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents



  14. Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

    Links for the day



  15. To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

    35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts



  16. The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

    The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States



  17. Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

    The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back



  18. Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

    In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways



  19. Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

    Links for the day



  20. The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

    Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders



  21. In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

    Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"



  22. The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

    Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")



  23. Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

    Links for the day



  24. The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

    The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests



  25. Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

    The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things



  26. IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

    The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)



  27. Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

    The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)



  28. From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

    Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all



  29. Links 13/6/2018: Cockpit 170, Plasma 5.13, Krita 4.0.4

    Links for the day



  30. When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

    Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts