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

[Stephen A. Cullum]

patrick wrote:
> 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leaplist mailing list
> Leaplist at leap-cf.org
> http://lists.leap-cf.org/mailman/listinfo/leaplist
>
>   
When I shop for  peripherals I check to see if they are Linux 
compatible. The fact that most vendors now support Linux shows that the 
operating system is not in the fringe at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/attachments/20071105/47937f4b/attachment-0001.html