[Leaplist] Advocacy: MS Execs gave sworn evidence that Linux was >17%, in 2004!

[patrick]

Every once in a while, someone else says something you've been thinking,
only, in a more cohesive way.  Getting some grasp of the Linux share of
the user base is like nailing jello to the wall.

I recall many reports in the media, on the Internet, that back up this
exchange, over on Newsgroups/Computers.OS.Linux.Advocacy  aka c.o.l.a
where it can be a day of M$ Troll lies and FUD, or a ray of sunshine of
mental clarity, such as the following exchange.  Access with Thunderbird
to your ISP news-server. Some of the concepts here can be put into a
google search, and actual documents, news reports, even web sites, will
appear!

Of major interest to me, is that Microsoft Executives have given sworn
Court testimony that they know for a fact that Linux has over 17% market
share in the user space, in 2004!

You may notice the time is early morning, 2:45 AM here, but, I awoke
with these nagging questions, and for once, I have no audience, as, even
my dog won't listen!

QUOTE:
On Nov 4, 11:51 pm, Charlie Tame <char... at tames.net> wrote:
> > Rex Ballard wrote:
>> > > On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Charlie Tame <char... at tames.net> wrote:
>>> > >> Don't think there's a lot to be gained from trying to guess.
>>> > >> Nobody is going to "Persuade" users to change systems as
>>> > >> well as Microsoft
>>> > >> themselves can do it  :)
>>> > >>
>> > > You are probably right.  Microsoft has done more to sell Linux
>> > > than  even the most rabid penguinistas.
> >
>> > > On the other hand, it's a good idea to have method of determining
>> > > patterns.
> >
>> > > It's easy to count a small number of users and units.
>> > > It's easy to count licenses when you have enforcement and forced
>> > > registration/activation mechanisms, which Microsoft has.
> >
>> > > On the other hand, counting Linux is much more of a challenge.
>> > > You have over 100 distributions, (315 LiveCDroms at
>> > > http://cdlist.com ,Ed.!) most of which have multiple
>> > > mirrors,  sometimes hundreds of them, and the downloaded images
>> > > can be freely redistributed.
> >
>> > > You have magazines and books (CD/DVD distributions, ed.) that
>> > > never get counted in any of the software surveys.
> >
>> > > You have corporate networks and academic networks that permit
>> > > massive downloads.
> >
>> > > Bob Young (Red Hat founder. ed.)did a very good study that was a
>> > > wake-up call.
> >
> > Well MS should have better figures (on sales volume. Ed.) than
> > anyone else since all their
> > updates are centralized (More or less) but even then it's not that
> > great, after all it could be a million users doing the update or one
> > guy doing a million reinstalls - bet he's pretty sick of it by now
> > :)

Microsoft DOES have very good figures and measures, as do major sites
with registered users such as Google, Yahoo, Infoseek, Expedia,
Travelocity, and several others.  These measures are taken using
persistent cookies or persistent Identities.

In both the US and EU antitrust cases, Microsoft executives argued
that Linux had a substantially higher percentage of the market than
previously suspected.  In the DOJ case (1999), Microsoft asserted that
Linux had 14% of the market.  In the EU case, Microsoft changed the
number to 17%.  These were statements made under oath, and would only
have been made if Microsoft were prepared to back up those numbers.

In neither trial did the prosecution challenge those numbers.  This
may have been because they had similar information.  Of course, this
was probably percentage of previous year based on GROWTH in counts of
servers.

> > Seriously though I think there's been a wake up call for a while, but
> > the Linux community heard it before it got loud and MS seem not to have
> > taken any notice yet.

Microsoft was aware of Linux as early as 1993.  Microsoft had also
been following the progress of UNIX, BSD, BSD/386, and FreeBSD.  Most
versions of AT&T Unix had a "floor" price of $700 per copy.  Even SCO
tried to demand a royalty payment of $700 per server in their demands
for revenue from Linux users.  In 1991, the BSD ownership was
transferred from University of California at Berkeley to the
University of Colorado of Boulder.  A commercial license for BSD was
granted to BSDi in Colorado Springs, and open source versions were
available as free downloads.

Microsoft knew it could defend itself against a $700 per copy Unix
License, but the possibiliity of a fully functional version of Unix or
a Unix-like operating system such as Mach/BSD, Mach/OSF, or Linux
being available in a format that would make it possible to make UNIX-
like workstations for under $1000 per unit, and UNIX-like servers for
under $1200 - that would be a very real problem and a very real threat
to Windows.

Microsoft knew about X11R4 and even licensed the HP Interviews package
on a nonexclusive basis.  It was actually an important part of Windows
NT 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 2000.  Microsoft knew
that if Unix PCs made it to retail shelves in 1990 or 1991, that
Microsoft could lose control of the PC market.  Bill Gates was so
concerned about it that he announced that Windows NT would be a
"Better Unix than Unix".

By 1994, Microsoft was watching Linux and Novell UnixWare very
closely.  I haven't ever been able to verify the story, but according
to one e-mail I received back in 1995 or 1996, Microsoft met with the
Novell board of directors and demanded that they stop development on a
UnixWare workstation.  Microsoft was also very concerned about the
Linux "plug-and-play" capabilities as well as dual boot capabilities.

According to a lecture given by Bob Young, Red Hat had offered to
license Red Hat Linux to OEMs for as little as $2 per copy as part of
a dual-boot system.  The OEMs didn't have to install Linux
exclusively, Red Hat was quite willing to let the OEMs continue to
install Windows.  The Red Hat solution would allow the end-user to
boot either Linux or Windows each time the PC was booted.

By the end of 1994, Microsoft pretty much decided that Linux was the
biggest threat.  There were multiple distributors, and each was
willing to offer Linux to OEMs at very reasonable terms.  The Linux
systems could configure themselves to a wide variety of ISA, EISA,
VESA, and MicroChannel.  I think Linux may have even supported the
original PCI standards.

In 1995, while Microsoft scrambled to deliver "Chicago", Ray Noorda
was running a Linux development organization called Caldera, formed by
all of the workstation developers who had been working on the UnixWare
Workstation project.  The Caldera organization went after many
franchises, offering a viable alternative to Windows at the cash
register, and to SCO Unix in the "server closet".

The book "The plot to get Bill Gates", provides much more insight on
this whole evolution, and the role of people like Ray Noorda.  Bill
Joy and Sun were also actively supporting Linux.  Remember that Sun
had established a "Beach-head" of about 15% of the corporate
workstation market in 1990, and Microsoft had killed that market in
1992 by announcing vapor-ware features of Windows NT.  Sun retaliated
by contributing OpenLook and the OpenLook Window manager to the Linux
movement.  In fact, Linux patches to OLVWM (virtual windows version)
added multiple desktops, ability to act as an X11 client to Motif
(IBM, DEC, and HP) and Open Look (SUN) servers..

Eric Raymond published the first Halloween papers in 1997.  Halloween,
by the way, was also the name of one of the earliest Red Hat
releases.  The Microsoft memos raising concerns about Linux may have
been triggerd as a result of the Halloween release.

Even with OS/X and Leopard threatening to make Apple the third largest
PC maker, Microsoft is still more concerned with Linux than any other
competitor.  Memos from top executives at Microsoft, as well as public
statements by Steve Ballmer say "Win Against Linux AT ALL
COSTS" (capitalization mine).

Even when ordered by the federal court to stop interfering with
attempts to market Linux to OEMs, Microsoft has attempted to force
OEMs to exclude Linux by forcing an "Either/Or" configuration.  The
OEMs are not allowed to use dual OS configurations.

By 2001, the Linux community offered "Live-CD" like Knoppix, that
allowed Linux users to test a PC with Linux, without actually having
to install it.  These could be coupled with external USB drives to
allow end-users to turn compatible PCs into Linux workstations without
altering the Windows configurations.

> > I mean for all the banter back and forth it seems
> > to me that Linux has leaped ahead while Microsoft has, well, jumped up
> > and down a bit and said "WoW". I think they are failing to note the
> > resentment building in their user base  :)

The problem for Microsoft is that Linux has been growing at triple-
digit rates and that growth and growth rate has cascaded through a
number of different markets.  Linux "Appliances" have replaced
millions, possibly hundreds of millions of Windows servers used for
file sharing, printer sharing, routing, firewalls, and other key
applications.

The big concern for Microsoft is that there are about 3-4 Million
"Linux Only" workstation users, and that market seems to be growing as
fast as all of the other Linux waves.  Microsoft's business model only
requires that windows licenses be sold to OEMs and Corporations,
ideally the same PC could be licensed 2-3 times.    Linux was more
like a "squatter".  But as people spend more time using LInux, and
more time LIKING Linux, many are beginning to realize they don't need
Windows at all.  Point of Sale terminals, Cash Registers, Call Center
workstations, and developer workstations are all excellent candidates
for replacement with Linux.

Microsoft has also watched ODF, OpenOffice, StarOffice, and other ODF
based Office suites become ubiquitious on not only Linux, but Windows
as well.  With over 1/2 billion Firefox users, 1/2 billion ODF Office
Suite users, and over 1 billion Java enabled devices, the market is
pushing back.  at Microsoft.  Many companies are planning preemptive
strikes to take place as soon as the DOJ settlement expires.

END QUOTE

My take is that I think a look at Groklaw and a pawing through the trial
transcripts might provide more enlightenment on the facts.  Some
searching in Ask.com, etc. will keep me from such nonsense as posting
these tidbits, at least for a short while.  What is your opinion?

The above proves to me what I knew already; that my ten years of
advocacy, standing in store aisles shouting "Linux is the future, here,
have a FREE GNU/Linux CD!" are not in vain!