5 ms·

A Brief History of Microsoft FUD (2006)

35 points by gizzlon 16y ago

cnkt 16y ago
Linux desktop market share : %1,67 [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...] Just please stop fighting with Microsoft and make a good desktop computer os. People will use Linux if it's good, not because Windows is bad.
JonoW 16y ago
Interesting that this article is from 2006. Whats happened since then?
- praptak 16y ago
  See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2408755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2408755 by the same author.
  - bruce511 16y ago
    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.
    - praptak 16y ago
      > For example, he complains about MS defending their patents No, for using bogus patents to attack competition. Defending patents is something totally different. > 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, Neither popularity of the practice nor ineptitude of the parties whose duty is to prevent it make the practice OK in my book.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      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 16y ago
  Since then Microsoft has abandoned it's server platform, and clearly Linux has won. Oh, no, wait....
- Fice 16y ago
  Then Microsoft started to try the EEE (embrace, extend and extinguish) strategy. Yet the projects under copyleft licenses like GPL are more or less immune to EEE, so MS has started to support permissive open-source against copyleft.
random42 16y ago
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" -Mahatma Gandhi
- blub 16y ago
  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.
  - pohl 16y ago
    Winning in this context does not necessarily mean vanquishing your nemesis. OSS can win simply by becomming a viable, usable alternative in a healthy, diverse market. Not long ago, the prize of mere coexistence a fantastic notion...for any non-Microsoft alternative. Apple was hanging on by their fingernails, too.
    - blub 16y ago
      > OSS can win simply by becomming a viable, usable alternative in a healthy, diverse market. Then it has won, no? :-)
  - reemrevnivek 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
Should be complemented by a brief hystory of Steve Ballmer tantrums: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_chair_at_fing_google http://battellemedia.com/archives/2005/09/ballmer_throws_a_c... http://www.gearfuse.com/ballmer-lashes-out-at-microsoft-employed-iphone-user-threatens-to-smash-iphone/ http://www.gearfuse.com/ballmer-lashes-out-at-microsoft-empl...
- skore 16y ago
  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...
gizzlon 16y ago
A kind-of-follow-up is at H-news: http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-I-was-wrong-about-Microsoft-1218798.html http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-I-was-wrong-about-... (same author)
- evangineer 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
trotsky 16y ago
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.

35 points by gizzlon 16y ago

cnkt 16y ago

Linux desktop market share : %1,67 [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...] Just please stop fighting with Microsoft and make a good desktop computer os. People will use Linux if it's good, not because Windows is bad.

JonoW 16y ago

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

praptak 16y ago
See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2408755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2408755 by the same author.
- bruce511 16y ago
  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.
  - praptak 16y ago
    > For example, he complains about MS defending their patents No, for using bogus patents to attack competition. Defending patents is something totally different. > 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, Neither popularity of the practice nor ineptitude of the parties whose duty is to prevent it make the practice OK in my book.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    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 16y ago
Since then Microsoft has abandoned it's server platform, and clearly Linux has won. Oh, no, wait....
Fice 16y ago
Then Microsoft started to try the EEE (embrace, extend and extinguish) strategy. Yet the projects under copyleft licenses like GPL are more or less immune to EEE, so MS has started to support permissive open-source against copyleft.

random42 16y ago

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

blub 16y ago
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.
- pohl 16y ago
  Winning in this context does not necessarily mean vanquishing your nemesis. OSS can win simply by becomming a viable, usable alternative in a healthy, diverse market. Not long ago, the prize of mere coexistence a fantastic notion...for any non-Microsoft alternative. Apple was hanging on by their fingernails, too.
  - blub 16y ago
    > OSS can win simply by becomming a viable, usable alternative in a healthy, diverse market. Then it has won, no? :-)
- reemrevnivek 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago

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

skore 16y ago
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...

gizzlon 16y ago

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

evangineer 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago

trotsky 16y ago

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.