346 lines
14 KiB
HTML
346 lines
14 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>The Open Source Initiative: Halloween Document 3</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<div align=center>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<table width=90% cellpadding=10 cellspacing=10 border=0>
|
|
|
|
<tr bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
|
|
|
|
<td colspan=2 align="right"><img src="../graphics/ossmall.png" width="250" height="26" border="0" align="right" alt="opensource.org">
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
<tr>
|
|
|
|
<td width=75% bgcolor="#C6EFF7" valign="top">
|
|
|
|
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans serif" size="3">
|
|
|
|
<h1>Halloween Document III (Version 1.5)</h1> *note: some links have died, but have been left so for historical reasons.
|
|
|
|
<h2>Microsoft's Reaction to the "Halloween Memorandum"</h2>
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's famously adept spin doctors took some time to develop a
|
|
response to the Halloween Documents. When first contacted in Monday,
|
|
VinodV (the author of the original memoranda) said he could ``neither
|
|
confirm nor deny'' their authenticity.<P>
|
|
|
|
Pressed, Microsoft admitted the authenticity of `Halloween I' later on
|
|
Monday -- perhaps because, as damning as it is, lying about it would
|
|
have been even more dangerous while the U.S. Department of Justice's
|
|
investigators are still pursuing antitrust action against the
|
|
company. <P>
|
|
|
|
But for most of the three days since, Microsoft HQ in Redmond has been
|
|
doing its damndest to ignore the existence of the Halloween Documents
|
|
and downplay their content.<P>
|
|
|
|
Gates's flacks have not been able to remain entirely silent, however.
|
|
Prominent Linux user Henk Kloepping succeeded in extracting a
|
|
statement (in English) from Aurelia van den Berg, the Press and Public
|
|
Relations manager of Microsoft Netherlands.<P>
|
|
|
|
It's possible that this statement was simply a local initiative.
|
|
Given Microsoft's famously centralized management, on the other hand,
|
|
it's more likely a trial balloon for a P.R. line
|
|
which, if it's well received, will be peddled in the U.S. Let's
|
|
examine it together, shall we?<P>
|
|
|
|
The original of this page is at <a
|
|
href="http://www.opensource.nl/articles/1998110501.html">http://www.opensource.nl/articles/1998110501.html</a>.
|
|
As usual, my comments are in green and curly-bracketed.<P>
|
|
|
|
1.1 -- First annotated, Nov 5 1998 (day of release).<P>
|
|
|
|
1.2 -- (6 Nov 1998) In a strange twist, Henk Kloepping reports having
|
|
received an unhappy phone call from Ms. van den Berg, who allegedly
|
|
claims that ``the memorandum issued was not written by her personally,
|
|
but came from MS itself'' and asked that her name be removed from the
|
|
Web page. Ms. van den Berg has not contacted me directly.<P>
|
|
|
|
Indirectly backing up Henk's report, there is now an <a
|
|
href="http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/mwarv/linuxresp.asp">
|
|
official response</a> which is quite similar to Ms. van den Berg's
|
|
statement. It is notable mainly for the clever way that VinodV's
|
|
boss dodges the question of what the juicy phrase ``<FONT COLOR="red">
|
|
deny OSS projects entry into the market</FONT>'' actually means.<P>
|
|
|
|
1.3 -- (7 Nov 1998) Minor additions.<P>
|
|
|
|
1.4 -- (16 Nov 1998) Added a hint for the sarcasm-impaired.<P>
|
|
|
|
1.5 -- (1 Oct 1999) Corrected a stale URL.<P>
|
|
}</FONT>
|
|
|
|
<H2>On the memo:</H2>
|
|
|
|
It appears to be a document written within Microsoft in August, with some
|
|
annotation by others.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
That's right. Microsoft HQ conceded that much to Wired, the Wall
|
|
Street Journal, and the New York Times three days ago.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
It is routine and appropriate for Microsoft - and we would assume all other
|
|
vendors - to research, write about, and assess all competitors ... both from
|
|
a business model point of view and from a technical point of view.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Yes, and it's routine and appropriate for vendors to discuss the
|
|
measures they'll take against the competition. What is <em>not</em>
|
|
quite so routine is to see the discussion imply a cold-blooded
|
|
acceptance of methods including <a
|
|
href="http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html">
|
|
FUD tactics</a> and dirty tricks such as ``de-commoditizing'' open
|
|
standards into monopolistic lock-in devices.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
It is not an "official position" by Microsoft on Linux. It is a technical
|
|
analysis written by an engineer in a staff capacity, and designed to
|
|
encourage discussion.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
|
|
Written by a staff engineer -- with contributions, endorsements, and
|
|
reviews by two Program Managers, the Senior Vice President in charge
|
|
of NT development, and two members of the eight-person Executive
|
|
Committee (Microsoft's Politburo, answering only to Bill Gates). The
|
|
only way this group could be any more ``official'' is if BillG himself
|
|
were in it.<P>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given the participants and the content, the lack of an ``official''
|
|
stamp seems more like a device for preserving plausible deniability
|
|
than anything else.<P>
|
|
|
|
Ironically, if we take Ms. van den Berg at her word, the memos are far
|
|
<em>more</em> more damning -- because that would imply a milieu in
|
|
which FUD and monopolistic dirty tricks are not merely the province of
|
|
a few top executives, but a pervasive part of the culture clear down
|
|
to the level of staff engineers.
|
|
}</FONT>
|
|
|
|
<H2>On Linux:</H2>
|
|
|
|
Sometimes Linux competes with Windows NT. This is hardly news. But it is not
|
|
NT vs Linux.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Considering that NT and Linux are the only two operating systems
|
|
actually gaining market share, methinks Ms. van den Berg doth protest
|
|
a little too much.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
Dramatically demonstrates the wildly different business models of the OS
|
|
marketplace and the vigorous competition at every level (technical,
|
|
alliances, applications, channels and business model) that characterize the
|
|
industry.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Ah. Now, this is clever. Rule One of public relations: when life hands
|
|
you a lemon, make lemonade. Ms. van den Berg wishes us to focus on
|
|
the evidence of competition, drawing from it the conclusion that Microft is
|
|
not a monopoly and the mean old Department of Justice should leave it
|
|
alone.<P>
|
|
|
|
Observe the conjuring trick: while feeling a warm glow about Ms. van
|
|
den Berg's worthy competition in the abstract, we are distracted from
|
|
thinking about the sleazy and destructive tactics that the memo describes
|
|
for concretely competing.<P>
|
|
|
|
Ms. van den Berg is earning her salary.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
In addition, however, Linux is an alternative to/competitor for other
|
|
versions of UNIX, especially RISC UNIX - in fact this may be the more
|
|
powerful affect in the marketplace.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
<em>Very</em> clever. She's completely changed the subject now; she's
|
|
not only gotten the reader to stop thinking about
|
|
``de-commoditization'', she's insinuated that Linux will actually
|
|
<em>assist</em> Microsoft's inevitable domination of the market.<P>
|
|
|
|
And this, barely a few breaths after she has lauded competition!<P>
|
|
|
|
This woman should write poetry.}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
Has an utterly different business, support, and investment model from the
|
|
comprehensive, integrated Microsoft model for Windows NT, which has
|
|
attracted millions of developers and tens of thousands of
|
|
applications.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Good. Good. Now we add the implication that, by comparison, Linux is
|
|
the eccentric preoccupation of a tiny tribe of malcontents living in
|
|
the software equivalent of tin shacks on a desert island.<P>
|
|
|
|
At all costs, the reader must be made to forget VinodV himself in
|
|
Halloween I: <FONT COLOR="red">``More importantly, OSS
|
|
evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than
|
|
our own evangelization efforts appear to scale.''
|
|
</FONT>
|
|
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
Linux is a philosophy as much as technical phenomena. On the positive, and
|
|
Microsoft is interested in better understanding and finding ways to
|
|
accommodate this dynamic, it provides for extensive peer review, and for a
|
|
lot of independent parallel work on a variety of features.<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Subtext: We at Microsoft will co-opt just as much of this magic as we
|
|
can, providing it doesn't require us to lower prices, reduce profit
|
|
margins, or cede control of anything.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
The negatives are stark, however:<BR>
|
|
</P>
|
|
<P>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI>no long term roadmap ... and no way to get one;<P>
|
|
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
This, of course, is much much worse than being stuck with Bill Gates's
|
|
single ``The Road Ahead'', whether you like the scenery or not.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
</LI>
|
|
<LI>individuals are a non-scalable factor in the development at various control
|
|
points;</LI><P>
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Microsoft, on the other hand, <em>never</em> relies on
|
|
individuals. All their developers are mutually interchangeable cogs in
|
|
a perfect machine.<P>
|
|
|
|
(Note for the sarcasm-impaired: the above is an example of what
|
|
rhetoricians call ``reduction to absurdity''. Look it up.)
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
|
|
<LI>no intellectual property protection means that the deep investments
|
|
needed by the industry in infrastructure will gravitate to other
|
|
business models.</LI><P>
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
Pay no attention to the fact that open-source software is actually
|
|
gaining market share most rapidly (and faster than NT) exactly where
|
|
``deep investment in infrastructure'' is most critical, on the
|
|
Internet and in the Fortune 500.
|
|
}</FONT><P>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
</P>
|
|
<P>
|
|
Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the
|
|
long run.
|
|
</P>
|
|
<FONT COLOR="green">{
|
|
This final remark is worthy of an essay all by itself. It is the least
|
|
logical -- and at the same time, most damning -- assertion in Ms. van
|
|
den Berg's entire statement.<P>
|
|
|
|
As propaganda, it has a superficial cleverness. It plants the idea
|
|
that any MIS manager so foolish as to use Linux will find his
|
|
operating system yanked out from under him by a future patent lawsuit --
|
|
perhaps one initiated by (whisper it) Microsoft itself. It's a perfect
|
|
FUD tactic.<P>
|
|
|
|
There are lots of pragmatic and legal reasons to believe this FUD is a
|
|
phantom. But to wander off into those would be to miss the key point
|
|
-- what it reveals about Microsoft's own assumptions.<P>
|
|
|
|
To see why this is true, try out the claim ``Unless SCO violates IP
|
|
rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run.'' Or:
|
|
``Unless Solaris violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver
|
|
innovation over the long run.'' Or, best of all, ``Unless NT violates
|
|
IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run.''.
|
|
Nobody has a natural monopoly on talent (and, as VinodV pointed out,
|
|
``<FONT COLOR="red">The ability of the OSS process to collect and
|
|
harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the
|
|
Internet is simply amazing.</FONT>'') If these claims are not credible,
|
|
neither is hers.<P>
|
|
|
|
If we believe Ms. van den Berg means her claim, we must deduce that
|
|
Microsoft actually cannot imagine <em>anyone</em> inventing
|
|
innovations that don't violate existing IP rights. <P>
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this is understandable, giving Microsoft's own long record of
|
|
buying or outright stealing key technologies rather than innovating.
|
|
MS-DOS: bought (from Tim Paterson). PC1 BIOS code: stolen (almost
|
|
bit-for-bit from Gary Kildall's CP/M BIOS). On-the-fly disk
|
|
compression: stolen (from Stac Electronics). Internet Explorer:
|
|
bought or stolen, depending on who you believe (from Spyglass). And
|
|
the list only <em>starts</em> with these...<P>
|
|
|
|
Microsoft truly behaves as though it corporately believes that there's
|
|
only a fixed pool of key ideas, most already discovered, which
|
|
software designers must squabble over in zero-sum competition until
|
|
the end of time. In that game, the only definition of `winning' is
|
|
cornering enough goodies to guarantee you a monopoly lock.<P>
|
|
|
|
But this raises a question for everyone betting on a Microsoft future;
|
|
can people with beliefs like that ``deliver innovation'' themselves?
|
|
Or are they more likely to lag further and further behind a culture
|
|
like Linux's, which perpetually seeks unexplored territory,
|
|
believes in innovation -- and practices it with the exuberance that
|
|
made VinodV observe ``<FONT COLOR="red">the <I>feeling</I> was
|
|
exhilarating and addictive</FONT>''.<P>
|
|
|
|
The interpretation of Ms. van den Berg's parting shot kindest to
|
|
Microsoft, then, is that it is a lie intended to frighten the
|
|
gullible. If it is the true Microsoft line, it reveals an astonishing
|
|
poverty of creative energy there -- that for all their billions and
|
|
all their putative brilliance, they cannot truly imagine anyone
|
|
creating anything genuinely new. }</FONT>
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
|
|
<td width=25% bgcolor="#BFBFBF" valign="top" class="nav">
|
|
|
|
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans serif" size="2">
|
|
|
|
<h3 class="nav">Table of Contents</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="index.html">Halloween Documents Home Page</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="halloween1.html">Halloween I</a>: <strong>Open Source Software–A (New?) Development Methodology</strong></p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="halloween2.html">Halloween II</a>: <strong>Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?</strong></p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="halloween4.html">Halloween IV</a>: <strong>When Software Things Were Rotten</strong>: Vinod Vallopillil's boss calls us "Robin Hood and his merry band." We return the compliment.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="halloween5.html">Halloween V</a>: <strong>The FUD Begins!</strong>: The Sheriff of Nottingham rides again. In this exciting episode, the things he doesn't say are more interesting than the things he does.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="halloween6.html">Halloween VI</a>: <strong>The Fatal Anniversary</strong>: First Mindcraft, now the Gartner Group–Microsoft leaves a trail of shattered credibility behind it.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav">Before emailing or phoning me with a question about these documents,
|
|
please read the <a href="faq.html"><strong>Halloween Documents Frequently-Asked Questions</strong></a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="links.html">Links</a> to press coverage</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<hr>
|
|
|
|
<p class="nav"><a href="../index.html">opensource.org home page</a></p>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|