06.23.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Steve Ballmer, Deception, Marketing, Bill Gates, GPL, FOSS at 7:31 am by Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft: From “People-ready” to “Free the People”
“There’s free software and then there’s open source… there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
–Bill Gates, April 2008
Some time ago we warned that Microsoft was been stealing “Open Source” [1, 2] at least in the sense that, as time goes by, it redefines and ‘dilutes’ it. Using the term out of context or out of place is a very convenient imposition that sets precedence.
The quote at the top gives you an idea of what Microsoft possibly — just possibly — has in store. More information about it you can find here:
The actual news that we approach comes from Mary Jo Foley. Remember that Microsoft is all about marketing (even AstroTrufing) and now comes this preview of things to come.
Microsoft earmarks another $200 million for Windows advertising
[…]
Fortune explains Microsoft’s image makeover plan, codenamed “FTP168 (with FTP being “Free the People”)…
Microsoft? Freeing the people? Need people be reminded of the hugely-DRM-’enabled’ Windows Vista, WGA, software lock-ins, forced upgrades and other type of menaces?
It’s too early to tell much beyond this, but there might be an obnoxious marketing push on its way — one that will further confuse those who hear about “Open Source” and “Free software”.
Some days ago we complained about the marketing-class ‘articles’ and inaccurate coverage from the BBC. It was all about Gates and Microsoft [1, 2]. Our criticism of Gates glorification is far from unique. Here is what Sam Varghese has just published:
The BBC, Gates and revisionism
[…]
What was appalling about the programme was the lack of any apparent preparation on the part of the interviewer, Fiona Bruce. Gates was able to paint a wonderful revisionist picture of the past and Ballmer actually got away with describing Microsoft as an ethical company.
It is fitting that the BBC decided to feature Gates on its Money programme and not on its Technology programme; after all, Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company. Technology comes a distant second.
Speaking of marketing, David Kirkpatrick, who is personally close to Microsoft, seems to be doing yet another Microsoft-sympathetic piece over at Fortune.
“Steve Ballmer was sobbing. He repeatedly tried to speak and couldn’t get the words out. Minutes passed as he tried to regain his composure. But the audience of 130 of Microsoft’s senior leaders waited patiently, many of them crying too,” David Kirkpatrick reports for Fortune.
Make no mistake. Yes, they were crying because leaders of the company essentially abandon the ship (even a director left last week), but the article is a portrayal of a humane Microsoft — one you can feel bad for.
In another Wall Street-type publication, the Financial Times, Steve Ballmer has just implicitly acknowledged that Microsoft cannot compete with Free (libre) software in terms of cost and maybe even quality. Watch what he said. (highlight in red is ours)
I’ve got to tell you, in every - other than the battle with Open Source, every other competitor, I love being able to come into a room and saying we’re better and we’re cheaper. We’re going to try to say we’re better and we’re cheaper basically. I don’t think this is sort of the end of the story by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it tells you we’re going to do things a little differently.
More memorable words came from CNET back in February. They will fight GNU/Linux at all costs. █
“[If I ask you who is Microsoft’s biggest competitor now, who would it be?] Open…Linux. I don’t want to say open source. Linux, certainly have to go with that.”
–Steve Ballmer (CNET Interview)
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
05.27.08
Posted in Microsoft, Finance, GNU/Linux, Novell, SLES/SLED, Steve Ballmer, FUD, Mono, Patents, FOSS at 1:18 am by Roy Schestowitz
Exchanging principles for cash?
A Mono (Monkey) in Sheep Clothing
A Linux.com writer is sort of advocating Mono applications again, and without warning about the accompanying dependencies. It ought to become an issue when Novell’s software patent poison is treated as though it’s an ordinary thing that needn’t even be flagged in some way. It worries when it’s taken for granted.
It comes at the expense of perfectly good applications that suffer from none of the same issues. Under normal circumstances, it’s best to just ignore (therefore we offer no hyperlink here), but Zonker did this too recently. Later on it was Glyn Moody who innocently linked to this, but again, without a warning that it’s a Mono application, such mistakes are bound to happen. “Avoid and avoid” should be the advice, unless one is a paying customer of Novell.
Writing About GNU/Linux to Later Deter Readers?
Some time ago we saw SourceForge succumbing to the budget of Microsoft Corporation. This is not helpful, no matter how you look at it. On several occasions we also warned that Slashdot appears to be ushering Microsoft’s entrances into the open source universe. It does this in a variety of subtle ways that we explained before [1, 2, 3]
“Microsoft is happy to be serving hot FUD and NewForge is happy to be making more money that way.”All sites are from the same network; so is Linux.com, which lost some credibility when it began embedding large anti-Linux advertisements from Microsoft in its articles which cover GNU/Linux. People were angry about this at the time and the writers, as opposed to publishers, has no control over this.
The excuses that come from writers vary from substanceless to hilarious. The matter of fact is that the Linux-curious would google their way into these article only to find huge graphical ads telling them that “Linux is a Huge Risk” and that “The London Stock Exchange Dumped Linux” (or something along those lines). Microsoft is happy to be serving hot FUD and NewForge is happy to be making more money that way. Writers and readers would be less than happy. This needs to stop.
Rewriting History About Microsoft/Novell Deal
Looking at Linux.com again, it’s unfortunate to find that, at least in the comments, there’s disinformation suggesting that SLED and SLES don’t bring revenue to Microsoft. This is incorrect. Maybe a lie, maybe a denial. The Microsoft/Novell deal was not a case of a “one-time payment,” as some people conveniently put it. We showed this before using Novell’s annual report, in addition to explicit words from Novell and Microsoft.
Novell pays Microsoft based on sales volume. It pays Microsoft for GNU/Linux. They share revenue in a single direction. Microsoft ‘Linux tax’ is real and denying its existence won’t make it magically disappear. It might, on the other hand, lead to dangerous complacency (as in “hush-hush, pass me your earning please because Free software is no longer free”). Remember what Steve Ballmer said last year:
“We believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability […] I do think it [Novell deal] clearly establishes that open source is not free.”
The following comment from Linux.com, which is appended to a recent review of SUSE, is quite telling:
How easily people forget the details of a controversy. The problem with the patent deal is not the payment to Microsoft, nor the interoperability it brings.
The problem with the patent deal was that it eroded the rights granted in the GPLv2 by adding additional restrictions on the code, without tripping any clause in the GPLv2. This is called a loophole. It meant that not every recipient of the GPLv2 code got the same rights, some got more through the “non-aggression treaty” from MS for Novell code. Which is against the spirit of what the GPLv2 was supposed to accomplish.
Novell was cut some slack by the FSF with the GPLv3 by the grandfather clause, but GPL-ed code was never meant to be burdonned with unequal rights through patent promises.
Sometimes people hate and they very well know why. In this case, I don’t think people abhor Novell, but loathe the deal itself.
Disclaimer: I love Linux.com, I have read it for years, so the above is merely feedback from a concerned reader. I also have a project on SourceForge, so there are no hidden/malicious motives. █
“Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. And there is a lot of work being done to improve it in and of itself, particularly to make it easier to use and easier for people to set up on their personal computers.”
–Paul Maritz, Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.21.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, SLES/SLED, Steve Ballmer, Patents, Interview at 4:44 am by Roy Schestowitz
“[…] we [Microsoft and Novell] agreed on […] essentially an arrangement under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer that anybody who uses Suse Linux is appropriately covered […] They’ve appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property, which is important to us. In a sense you could say anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability, because it’s not just Microsoft patents.”
–Steve Ballmer
It was earlier today that we wrote about the need to keep an eye open and not be distracted by labels like “Microsoft hater”. Stormy Peters has shared the following thoughts about the Novell/Microsoft deal, including some of its impacts. She responded to yet another bundle of bad labels such as “purists” and “fanatics”, which just come to show you how Microsoft et al incite and poison the public against critics and opposers (Microsoft Mouthpiece Rob Enderle going as far as comparisons to 9/11 terrorists while others join in).
twessels: Novell claims their November 2, 2006, agreement with Microsoft has helped push forward adoption of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server in major commercial customer accounts. And having just attended Novell’s BrainShare I can see that the technical cooperation between Novell and Microsoft is starting to bear fruit. Was the knee-jerk reaction of the purists and fanatics worth all of the rhetoric that ensued? And if not, why has Red Hat refused to even consider such an agreement with Microsoft? It seems that they lost out on having a powerhouse marketing partner, like Microsoft, driving business their way.
Stormy_Peters: “Was the knee-jerk reaction of the purists and fanatics worth all of the rhetoric that ensued?” Absolutely. The open source community needs the purists and fanatics to keep us straight. That said, the world is not black and white and business is not always evil. Also, businesses are using combinations of open source and proprietary software in very effective ways. So if the Microsoft agreement brings more customers to Linux, good. If some open source developers protest the patent agreement, good too. (Now hopefully nobody quotes just one part of this answer!)
ITgirl: So, is it safe to say that the whole Microsoft threats thing has turned into nothing … do you think enterprises are at all concerned about that anymore? Do you think that Microsoft might still really take legal action against any Linux or open-source companies?
Stormy_Peters: First off, I’m not an attorney and I can’t say whether the threat is real or imagined. However, I think Microsoft is adopting the open source software model more and more. I’ve definitely been hearing less concern around the whole Novell/Microsoft agreement. I think the patent and open source issue is still a very real concern. It’s very hard for open source software developers to know if they’ve violated someone’s patent (out of the tens of thousands out there) and very easy for someone to see if an open source software developer has violated their particular patent.
In a land of disinformation, defeating the Microsoft/Novell-imposed characterisation of the news can be hard, but at least we can try. It gets harder in the face of smear campaigns. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.02.08
Posted in Microsoft, Finance, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, Steve Ballmer, Deception, Mono, FOSS at 11:19 am by Roy Schestowitz
Image from Wikimedia
“Novell congratulates itself for snogging Microsoft” –The Register
Enthusiastic involvement and engagement with Microsoft by OpenSUSE’s lead was discussed here critically a couple of days back, especially due to the negative impacts of the Novell/Microsoft deal on OpenSUSE volunteers — the very same people that the community manager is supposed to invite and attract.
LinuxToday has some interesting comments about that too. Novell is not particularly popular among the many readers over there, at least based on the comments that are typically posted. The editors feel similarly. Here is one about Novell’s trust in Microsoft:
They still do/update “Get the Facts” with blatant lies and misinformation. They still play tricks to get their way, ISO-MSOOXML. They still strong arm PC OEMs as in forcing them to take the Vista pill cram it down consumers throats. They still oppose Linux anywhere it gains traction as in the Classmate PC deal where they came in and paid to have Windows installed after the laptops arrived with Linux. They have been going after the OLPC customers and they are purchasing customers for Silverlight because it is a lockin platform. No Jane, Moonlight is a joke and will never be fully compatible.
So why in the world would anyone think that Microsoft would play in the open source game? I’m sorry but only a moron would think they could get Microsoft to play along.
Microlinux Foundation?!?!?
As a timely reminder of the potentially negative impact of Novell inside the Linux Foundation [1, 2] consider this other headsup.
Novell has a seat on the board of the Linux Foundation, the foundation sponsoring Linus so that he’d be free to work on the Linux kernel. Yup, the same Novell from the ominous Microsoft-Nowell agreement related to Linux patenting. Do board seats have any odor?
It would not be impossible for Microsoft to at least attempt to join as well, arguing that it already runs some GNU/Linux servers. Remember Microsoft’s persistent attempts to join the Open Solutions Alliance, despite repeated rejections? Its former head has just jumped ship to another company.
Novell and Microsoft Busy Together While Adobe Battles Moonlight and Silverpatent [sic]
As already discussed in a previous post, Novell and Microsoft could take a little lesson from what Adobe did. Miguel’s blame-throwing does not help, especially if he continues in the same company with the same projects that bring benefit to Microsoft.
Adobe opens up Flash for the mobile world. A lesson for Microsoft
[…]
No side-deals to ensure a dearth of competition [link to Novell-type deal]. Maybe Microsoft could take a page from Adobe’s playbook. That is, if it wants to be relevant on the web.
Elephant in a Room of Gentlemen
In a separate new post it is now shown that either hypocrisy or ignorance leads to Microsoft disrespect for Free software.
Could it be, Mr. Ballmer, that you are classically overlooking a major opportunity for Microsoft because you simply don’t understand the open-source opportunity? Now would be a good time for a touch of humility and a smidgeon of good counsel from those around you.
As I told Matt Asay several times before, Steve Ballmer is a lost cause. But at least there are those mere chances of the man retiring or being pressured out the door. Among some recent articles of interest (starting with the most recent) consider:
1. If Ballmer bolts, who will lead Microsoft?
“Hey! Ho! Time for Ballmer to go,” a Wired.com headline proclaimed on April 29.
My rejoinder: “Hell, no. There are no Softies ready for a promo.”
2. Microsoft Should Fire Steve Ballmer, or Hire SuperNanny. Or Both.
What should happen is this: Ballmer should re-canvass Yahoo’s largest shareholders and ask what firm price in cash would get them on-board, and then offer it. No more futzing through middlemen bankers, just ask and deliver. I doubt this will happen — Ballmer is caught up among internal politics, his own increasing impotence, and childish Yahoo intransigence — so he is stuck and looking more and like someone who keeps threatening to ground his kids, but never does. As we have all learned from watching SuperNanny, the trouble is rarely with the kids; it’s almost always the nitwit parents.
Such is the case here, so my recipe for action? Fire Ballmer. Think how quickly things would change at Microsoft, and in this deal. And then hire SuperNanny and film some Microsoft meetings. I’d watch.
3. Steve Ballmer’s Nine Year Retirement Plan
Bill Gates is retiring from Microsoft this year and the exec he left in charge, Steve Ballmer, is ready to leave in nine years.
4. Does Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer need an intervention?
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer may need an intervention before this obsession with Yahoo–which is really about an obsession over Google–spins out of control.
5. Is the Sleeping Giant Finally Waking Up, or Just Rolling Over?
Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, Ballmer seems to be preoccupied with GOOG while MSFT melts down - or at least while the first embers, which had already been apparent for years, now threaten to turn into something much more serious. Hence the recent ill-advised and fiscally irresponsible YHOO bid.
6. Microsoft FY08Q3 Results
[Microsoft employee:] Mr. Ballmer engaged in some good bluster Wednesday, saying that Microsoft could just walk away from the deal. Please, please, walk on by. I haven’t talked to every employee at Microsoft, of course, but everyone that I’ve talked to believes this is a bad idea. And that’s not hand wringing.
7. Is Microsoft’s Ballmer a bad dealmaker?
The bid for Yahoo that helped sink the market value of Microsoft (MSFT) by more than $20 billion in one day in early February is one of the latest in a string of acquisitions and major investment stakes Microsoft has initiated since CEO Steve Ballmer took over in 2000 that have been punished by the stock market as misjudgments.
“Some learn more quickly than others. It doesn’t look like Mr. Ballmer is learning that quickly,” says UCLA Anderson School of Management professor Richard Roll, lead author of a study that analyzed 11 years of merger and acquisition announcements by 2,589 CEOs at 1,740 U.S. companies.
8. UCLA Professor: Microsoft CEO Ballmer a ‘hubris-infected serial acquirer’ with dismal track record
9. Bear Stearns’s Advice To Microsoft
Co-founder Bill Gates can’t be thrilled with watching Ballmer drain the company’s cash. He didn’t get so rich by buying at the top of the market.
10. Will Deal-Making Chiefs Ever Learn? Maybe.
Mr. Ballmer was considered a “hubris-infected” chief under the study’s definition, because of Microsoft’s value-destroying deal to invest $100 million in Vertical Net in 2000. He followed up with deals for Intertainer and BroadBand Office, which were also followed by below-market returns for shareholders.
In all, Mr. Ballmer made 15 deals between 2000 and 2002, with an average market-adjusted shareholder return of negative 4.59 percent.
11. Mergers of Corporate Giants Not Likely to Benefit Consumers
“There is little if any evidence that increased corporate size in already-large national and international firms produces greater technological innovation,” writes Elizabeth Sanders, Professor of Government at Cornell University. “To the contrary, it probably leads to less, given lower competitive pressures, and the starving of research in debt-burdened companies.”
12. Can Ballmer pilot Microsoft through a changed tech course?
Can Ballmer steer Microsoft out of the roadblocks?
The highly competitive Ballmer, you might say, is the man who cried “nice.” And like the boy who cried wolf, no one believed him. The software giant’s attempt to make nice with much of the developer community by opening up its APIs for key products was greeted with a jaundiced eye by regulators at the powerful European Commission.
However sincere Microsoft’s stated change of heart may be, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Microsoft — which knows it has to change — is still struggling to find a fresher path.
What’s a poor CEO to do?
Now that Bill Gates has effectively left the building, Ballmer is free to transform Microsoft, a job made all the tougher by the enormous reservoir of mistrust the company has engendered over the years.
Case in point: the open APIs. Microsoft will give its competitors free access to the application programming interfaces and protocols it uses to ensure interoperability between its own products, a very significant change in business practices.
13. Microsoft Profit Drops; Forecast May Miss Estimates
The world’s biggest software maker said sales of Windows for PCs sank 24 percent and revenue from its online advertising unit came in at the low end of its projections. Microsoft’s report contrasted with positive comments from chipmaker Intel Corp. and computer company International Business Machines Corp.
[…]
Microsoft declined $1.60 to $30.20 in extended trading after closing at $31.80 at 4 p.m. New York time on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The stock has fallen 11 percent this year.
14. Microsoft says to borrow money for Yahoo deal
Microsoft Corp said on Monday it may borrow money for the first time in its history to fund a portion of its $44.6 billion unsolicited offer for Yahoo Inc.
15. Microsoft’s DreamSpark – What a Giveaway
The rest of the $44.6bn (£22.3bn) deal would be financed with an undisclosed amount of credit.
What that means is that it must squeeze as much money as it can from its operations to fund that debt and still pay dividends to shareholders, who will be looking for some payback from the Yahoo takeover. Giving away software is the last thing it would want to do in these circumstances, and the DreamSpark announcement shows just how worried it is about the future.
This hopefully shed some light on Microsoft’s situation. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.21.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Steve Ballmer, FUD, Debian, OLPC, Bill Gates, Antitrust, OSDL at 9:39 pm by Roy Schestowitz
“I’ve heard from Novell sales representatives that Microsoft sales executives have started calling the Suse Linux Enterprise Server coupons “royalty payments”"
–Matt Asay, April 21st, 2008
Yesterday we wrote about Novell’s news from China and warned that Microsoft and Novell had begun to share some more vocabulary. Several more articles have since then been published to cover the new announcement, including this one.
As part of the on-going agreement with Novell, Microsoft is identifying and converting unsupported users of Linux to the latest versions of Suse Linux.
After a long period of doubt, scepticism and criticism over their agreement, Novell and Microsoft are finally starting to see the benefits of the 5-year alliance originally announced in December 2006.
Continuing to dabble with the ‘dark side,’ Ron Hovsepian, president and CEO of Novell said in a recent press-release, describing the outcomes of their alliance with Microsoft, “It’s very encouraging to see that our business and technical collaboration continues to resonate with customers around the globe.”
What is meant by “unsupported users of Linux”? Are these users who do not pay Microsoft for mythical software patents in a country where these are invalid anyway? If it’s about technical support, they already have several other companies to turn to.
Amid all this ugliness, the Linux Foundation, which is sponsored by Novell, keeps silent and at times even dishonest about these issues. Sam Varghese has just expressed his thoughts and articulated his complaints, which seem to suggest that the roots of Linux, including projects like Debian and even Slackware are being neglected, disregarded and faced with disinterest from those who had a lot of labour exploited.
Whither the Linux Foundation?
We live in the age of the spinmeister, the age when language is used more as a means to confuse than to educate, an age when obfuscation is preferred to clarification.
[…]
The Foundation, one must bear in mind, was formed at the beginning of 2007 by a merger between the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group.
This is the same group that, last year, asked people to respect Microsoft .
[…]
For some time now, the Foundation has been trying to generate its own coverage. There were some pitiful attempts by Zemlin earlier this year to pass around interviews which he had done with Foundation employees. But he came unstuck when he interviewed Novell chief Ron Hovsepian and never raised the question of that company’s deal with Microsoft. If anything could have unmasked an interview as being bogus, this was it.
[…]
The whole exercise tells me one thing: this is taking Linux away from its roots. The whole point is to rapidly introduce changes into the kernel, changes which the corporates want, changes for which they pay, both by being members of this Foundation and also by employing developers.
In BusinessWeek, the Foundation protested against Microsoft’s saber-rattling. Shouldn’t it begin to pressure and publicly criticise Novell for being a part of the same abuse the Foundation seemingly protested against? Well, the Foundation is far too close to Novell and it’s even feeding Microsoft’s favourite shills now.
This is of course disappointing because the very same companies that made use of Free software now turn their backs on it, in addition to giving GNU the kick in favour of “commercial open-source” or whatever they choose to call it nowadays (Web 2.0, SaaS, open enterprise ’solutions’).
Volunteering advocates among us are by no means happy and it probably shows. Ken Starks is optimistic however.
Linux Users will rescue the Desktop. We don’t need corporate help.
Let me take this ice cold bucket of water and welcome those who believe this to the real world. Take a deep breath, because I’m about to splash you abruptly back into the cold, harsh light of reality.
O’Grady writes some more related notes in his Q&A/monologue-style page in order to explain this perplexing situation which he broadly refers to as “Open Source Indemnification”.
While it remains possible - at least as long as Ballmer is at the helm - that Microsoft could pursue litigation against customers, I think highly unlikely.
For a brand that relies highly on rank and file recognition and adoption, pursuing an RIAA-style course of action that includes legal action against its direct customers would be the worst kind of brand suicide. So while Ballmer might hint at such actions in attempt to disincent usage and adoption of the technologies, it’s unlikely that it would go further than that. If not because of the PR implications, then because of the mutually assured destruction scenarios that would likely result in retaliatory lawsuits from competitive vendors with patent portfolios of their own.
Where is the Linux Foundation and why is it not protesting against this abuse by Microsoft? Does it just inherit Novell’s bad behaviour and accepts it silently because of the sponsorship? Might the “respect Microsoft” remark [1, 2, 3] mean more than we realise? It makes the Linux Foundation look rather bad if it asks us to respect what a government delegate compares to a Scientology-like cult. The same goes for Novell.
Amid the departure of Walter Bender they really ought to learn about Intel’s and Microsoft’s “Slog” (Microsoft term [*]) against OLPC [1, 2, 3, 4]. Don’t be surprised if Microsoft conquers this project quite soon, in the sense that it might assign its own people and use its own operating system to get children “addicted” to Windows (again, Microsoft’s own term [**]). █
___
[*] From Microsoft’s internal documents:
8: The Slog
Guerilla marketing is often a long, hard slog.
slog (sl^g) v. slogged, slogqing, slogs. –tr, To strike with heavy blows, as in boxing. -intr. 1. To walk with a slow, plodding gait. 2. To work diligently for long hours. –n. . 1. long, hard work. 2. A long, exhausting march or hike. [Orig. unknown.] -slog’ger
–American Heritage Dictionary, 1991
In the Slog, Microsoft dukes it out with the competition. MSDN and Platform marketing are the regular forces, exchanging blows with the enemy mano a mano. Evangelism should avoid formal, frontal assaults, instead focusing its efforts of hit-and-run tactics.
In the Slog, the enemy will counter-attack, trying to subvert your Tier A ISVs to their side, just as you should try to subvert their ISVs to your side. New ISVs should be sought, and directed to MSDN’s one-to- many programs. Evangelism should constantly be on the lookout for killer demos, hot young startups, major ISVs, customer testimonials, enemy-alliance-busting defections and other opportunities to demonstrate momentum for our technology. If bugs are found in our technology, or missing features are found to be critically important, then now is the time to identify and fix them. Stay engaged with the technology development team; ensure that you are a valuable resource for them, not a hectoring pest. Document all of your progress (ideally in regularly updated internal Web pages) and forward it regularly to management. If management is not aware of your progress, your successes, and your stumbling blocks, then they can’t help. (They may not help anyway, but they can’t if they don’t know what you need.)
Keep those Tier A ISVs on track to delivery! They are your strongest weapons and cannot be forgotten.
The elements of the evangelical infrastructure - conference presentations, courses, seminars, books, magazine articles, whitepapers, etc. – should start hitting the street at the start of the Slog. They should be so numerous as to push all other books off the shelf, courses out of catalogs, and presentations off the stage.
Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. “Independent” analyst’s report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “Independent” courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the “stacked panel”. Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an “unbiased” panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every “naturally occurring” panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvelously independent doesn’t it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
— Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
— Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he’s well-known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?
Gathering intelligence on enemy activities is critical to the success of the Slog. We need to know who their allies are and what differences exist between them and their allies (there are always sources of tension between allies), so that we can find ways to split ‘em apart. Reading the trade press, lurking on newsgroups, attending conferences, and (above all) talking to ISVs is essential to gathering this intelligence.
This is a very tough phase of evangelism. You’ll be pulled in every direction at once, randomized by short-term opportunities and action items, nagged by your Tier A ISVs and pestered by every other ISV that wants to become a Tier A. Management will want to know right now how you’re going to respond to some bogus announcement by some random ISV. Some PM over in Consumer will demand that you drop everything to go talk to an ISV in Outer Mongolia, that’s run by an old college chum of his. Competitors will make surprise announcements, lie through their teeth, and generally try to screw you just as hard as you are trying to screw them.
Of course, if you are very, very lucky, there will be no competition to your technology. But this is almost never the case. ODBC had its IDAPI, OLE had its OpenDoc, COM had its SOM, DCOM has its CORBA, MAPI had its VIM, etc., etc., etc. The existence of a Microsoft technology nearly guarantees that a competitive technology will spring into existence overnight, backed by an impromptu association of Microsoft competitors which have decided to draw yet another Line in the Sand (”If we don’t stop Microsoft here, then they are going to take over the whole world!”).
Without a competing technology to fight, you just hand everything over to MSDN, give your Tier A ISVs to PSS, and find a new technology to evangelize. But that takes most of the fun out of the game 
9: Final Release:
Evangelism of a given technology usually ends with the final, shipping release of that technology. One last big press event, with demos, a tradeshow, press releases, etc., is often called for, showcasing the apps that are sim-shipping and the customers that are using them. In the face of strong competition, Evangelism’s
focus may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.
10: Critical Mass
The Slog may continue beyond the Final Release, for many months, until Critical Mass is reached. It is possible that Critical Mass will not be reached at all for Version X of a technology, such that Phases 1-9 will have to be repeated – possibly more than once – before ever reaching Critical Mass.
Critical Mass is reached when the technology starts evangelizing itself. When reviews subtract points if it’s not supported; when analysts say “great product plan, but what about [Technology Name]?”; when VC’s won’t fund a company unless it supports [Technology Name] - that’s Critical Mass. At that point, Evangelism of the technology stops, and Evangelism’s resources are applied to other technologies – or, if you’re lucky, moves into the Mopping Up phase.
11: Mopping Up
Mopping Up can be a lot of fun. In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism’s goal is to put the final nail into the competing technology’s coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in, “he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2.” Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of the competition’s technology part of the mythology of the computer industry. We want to place selection pressure on those companies and individuals that show a genetic weakness for competitors’ technologies, to make the industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over time.
12: Victory
Some technologies continue as competitors long after they are true threats - look at OS/2, the Operating System that Refused to Die. It is always possible - however unlikely – that competitors like OpenDoc, SOM, OS/2, etc, could rise from the dead… so long as there is still development work being done on them. Therefore, final victory is reached only when the competing technology’s development team is disbanded, its offices reassigned, its marketing people promoted, etc. You have truly and finally won, when they come to interview for work at Microsoft.
Victory is sweet. Savor it. Then, find a new technology to evangelize — and get back to work
[**] From Cybersource:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governments Must Reject Gates’ $3 Bid to Addict Next Billion PC Users
30th April, 2007
On April 19th, Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft Corp., unveiled a plan
which seeks to enlist the help of developing nations in a
barely-concealed attempt to get the next billion PC users hooked onto
Microsoft software. Under the guise of trying to bridge the digital
divide, Microsoft will instead aim to extend its desktop monopoly by
using the same technique it’s used for years through software piracy:
platform addiction. An addiction it will milk in future decades. An
addiction that governments should reject in favour of free and open
source software - the only way to truly bridge the digital divide.
“Microsoft’s strategy of getting developing nations hooked on its
software was clearly outlined by Bill Gates almost a decade ago,” said
Con Zymaris, CEO of long-standing open source firm Cybersource.
Specifically, Bill Gates, citing China as an example, said:
“Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but
people don’t pay for the software,” he said. “Someday they will, though.
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to
collect sometime in the next decade.”[1]
“From this, we analyse the following strategy. Microsoft would allow
users in developing countries to use pirated software, which in turn
would lock those users into Microsoft’s proprietary data formats,
proprietary protocols and proprietary Application Programming Interfaces
(APIs). Once so tithed to Microsoft, these users would find it almost
impossible to move to alternatives, thus providing a captive future
revenue stream,” explained Zymaris. “And this new strategy is even more
insidious, as Microsoft is expecting governments to pay for the
hardware, thus paving the way for Microsoft to snare its next billion
addicts in a friction-free manner.”
“What is equally apparent is that Microsoft would prefer to lose money
initially, to prevent competitors from capturing mindshare. Today, Linux
and open source software are Microsoft’s biggest competitor. And Linux
and open source software are capturing huge mindshare in developing
nations, thus Microsoft’s knee-jerk reaction in offering its
$3-meal-deal,” Zymaris said. “Instead of accepting the Microsoft deal,
governments should push open source software, guaranteeing freedom
from vendor lock-in and future price hikes.”
And where Microsoft offers a handful of cut-down applications in its
$3-meal-deal, open source supplies thousands of complete applications,
for no cost at all. Highly functional applications such as Scribus
(desktop publishing), Gimp, (photo editing), Blender3D (animation),
Inkscape (vector drawing), MySQL (database), Python (programming
environment), will help students in their creative endevours. Other
landmark applications such as Linux, OpenOffice.org (office suite) and
Firefox (web browser) will help all users.
“By helping to make users aware of open source alternatives, by
disseminating that software through CD give-aways and via subsidised,
low-cost PCs, governments will be reducing their reliance on proprietary
vendors and improve access to 21st century technology. It’s the
only way to ensure that their citizens will be free to use quality
software, without constraints, in perpetuity,” concluded Zymaris.
References:
[1] http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.19.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, Steve Ballmer, Mono, Patents, GPL, Patent Covenant, Oracle, Google, FOSS at 2:54 am by Roy Schestowitz
Image from Wikimedia
Matt Asay has just weighed in on this debate that was mentioned here before. It’s centered around the mixing of Free software and software patents. His post is long, he has many insightful things to share rant about and here is just a fragment.
Dual-licensing with patents: It’s bound to happen
[…]
The problem with this sort of distinction (which we and virtually every open-source company of which I’m familiar espouses, in terms of a “community” and “professional” version) is how easily patent protection could creep into the one but not the other. When the open-source world starts selling the same FUD that the proprietary world does we have lost.
I care far less about hybrid models that depend on a mixture of proprietary extensions and an open-source core, as MySQL is contemplating, than I do about hybrid models that are a blend of “open source and very risky!” and “proprietary and oh so safe!”. If we slip into this sort of a model, open source loses its potency. It loses its character. It loses its integrity.
The downstreaming problem which he speaks of is represented by Novell’s Moonlight. Novell already steps further than this, e.g. by separating Mono into ‘chunks’ depending on Microsoft’s R(seanable)AND, which is only as unreasonable as it wants and needs it to be. If you wish to witness Microsoft’s mis-comprehension of ‘open source’ (or “open minus source”, i.e. open-source), then take a look at Ozzie’s remarks which we intentionally only alluded to earlier but never took seriously. The ‘news’ was so insignificant that it was hardly comment-worthy. Microsoft is still all “patents, patents, patents!”
The concessions Microsoft makes are merely a case of public image — saving face on the face of it. If you need another more contemporary glimpse at Microsoft’s attitude, get a load of this latest analysis from the 451 Group.
There was general agreement that large IT vendors, including software giants such as Google, Oracle and even Microsoft, all see a need for involvement in open source. What also emerged as a common theme during our panel was that no big vendor could afford not to be in open source in some way or another. Basically, it’s been competitive necessity and cost effectiveness that has led vendors to open source, and this helps explain why we see open source all over the place. There was also a recognition that we were not talking about what vendors might be doing or when they might be making moves around open source. We were talking about the things these vendors are doing today and where they are looking next to push the ideas and advantages of open source further.
As you know, Google and Oracle just adore Free software. Yes, they love using it. They love receiving updates. They love the fact that Red Hat builds a platform for them and in the case of Oracle, lots of support money can be extracted at the developers’ expense. What’s not to love when you’re a freeloader?
“Microsoft’s legacy assets (secret code) become increasingly redundant as equivalent and often superior Free software is made available…”As for Microsoft, it wishes to believe that open source as a whole will become yet another Windows ISV that brings profits to Microsoft. In many other cases, it’s a tad unfortunate to find how they turned Free software into just visibility of source code as a marketing distinguisher if not a self-serving ploy.
Microsoft’s legacy assets (secret code) become increasingly redundant as equivalent and often superior Free software is made available for download, use, and redistribution. Microsoft knows all of this. What can it brag about? Probably just piles of papers, fueled by the very same laws it aggressively lobbies for. It shapes market rules to suppress emerging threats, to hinder natural progression, sometimes perceived as “disruption”. In response, we, as Free software supporters, must protest to keep the law in tact or restore it to a state of sanity. Digital slavery and a modern-age feudal system is good for nobody.
Oh look! The press is buzzing about another Microsoft intellectual monopoly. Watch carefully what you do with your hands now.
Right and left mouse buttons are placed on the side in a thumb-accessible position, and the design is unobtrusive enough to allow for easy typing when it’s on. We’d love to get a hand-on with the mouse if it ever comes out. It looks great and the ability to surf the internet without keeping our hand close to the computer is very conducive to our leisure time activities.
The gist of it all: a combination of prior art fitted onto A4-sized white paper sheets. Can’t have too many of these though! Word on the street is that Microsoft has run out of paper, so it can’t let Linux know what it’s allegedly infringing on. █
“Most people who are familiar with patents know it’s not standard operating procedure to list the patents… The response of that would be administratively impossible to keep up with.”
–Jim Markwith, Microsoft patents attorney
(after saber-rattling against Linux)
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.17.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, Ron Hovsepian, Steve Ballmer, FUD, Bill Gates, Vista, FOSS at 10:37 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Is Novell advocating Free software at all?
“You’ve been waiting months for the release of Windows Vista, and now it’s here. But are you ready to make the move? New management solutions from Novell® can help. We’ve created this migration and management resource center to help you plan, manage and execute a successful migration including: analyst reports, best practices, web seminars and white papers. We’ll be adding new items regularly, so check back often.”
Novell: Windows Vista Migration Resources
A day ago we mentioned the tactless remarks from Ron Hovsepian, whose damage can affect not only Novell, but Novell’s (and Microsoft’s) rivals as well. What on earth was he thinking? Others ask themselves the same question.
Novell CEO Disses Embrace of Desktop Linux
[…]
While acceptance and conversion to Desktop Linux may occur more slowly in the U.S. than in other parts of the world, I think it sends a negative message for the CEO of a company that produces a product to make such a statement about that product. You don’t hear the president of the Dairy Association saying that he predicts that people are going to drink less milk. Instead, you see commercials supporting milk’s advantages and positive aspects. Have you ever seen a Linux commercial?
Fortunately, Novell’s CEO is not the only one to have foolishly criticised his own products out in public. Only yesterday:
As PC users clamor for Microsoft to continue to support Windows XP, company CEO Steve Ballmer called the Vista OS “a work in progress” at an annual Seattle event on Thursday.
A couple of months ago:
Holy Crap: Did Bill Gates Just Say Windows Sucks?
[…]
We asked a simple question: what Microsoft product could have used a little more polish before release? The answer astounded us. We would just like to thank Bill Gates for his honesty and his openness.
Microsoft and Novell appear to be sharing the same problem which is pessimism. It might, after all, be justified, but Novell mustn’t drag GNU/Linux as a whole into this. █
Better to keep quiet
when there is nothing
of substance to say
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
