This is a brilliant article and touches on some excellent points. When one looks at the past heavy-handed tactics Microsoft has used in their exclusivity agreements, it's fairly obvious where this is going. When is the bullying, whispering, and general FUD going to end. Full Frontal Assault is needed immediately.

This is a threat to Linux how? I really dont see how M$ can claim anything over Linux and GPL. Other companies have tried (SCO anyone?) and failed quite miserably. They have not one single legal leg to stand on. All they can, and allways have done, is continue to try to spread misinformation to all those actually dumb enough to believe it. Even so, I just cant imagine how this affects those of us that have seen the light and use Linux on our desktops. Sure, M$ is the bad guy blah blah blah, and I agree with that of course, but they will not be able to stop the spread of Open Source and will, ultimately, expend countless millions on trying, thus destroying thier credibility with the world and thier stockholders will get restless. Its a never ending cycle of doom for them and they know it so they will attempt more and more desperate measures, ending up more and more behind the power curve that Open Source projects inspire. I dont see a light at the end of the tunnel for Microsoft, but there is a gaping chasm opening up for Open Source because of them.

I agree with the general spirit of everything written in the article, but I don't think that "counterattack" by the other IT companies will happen anytime soon, unless they are *directly* attacked -- which is what you say won't happen.

I think this is like the Cold War times, when assured mutual destruction kept any of the sides to really strike each other (they would attack the little guys who were indirectly associated to the enemy instead). So, why would Sun or IBM or whomever start nuking the other side, when they know the other side has enough nukes to get them too? Nothing short of a good change in these stupid patent laws can really solve this problem, methinks.

Cheers
J

Microsoft HAS to stop Linux. They have no choice. It's not just a competitor, it's the lynchpin of their business model.

Over the last few days I downloaded two free licenses and software for the Solaris 10 operating system. It was my first experience with this guy as an x86 freebie, though I've used it for years on Sparc platforms, usually bundled with the hardware. I've also used various free Linux distros, with increasing success.

Today, I woke up with the startling realization that Microsoft is the only vendor still charging money for a robust x86/x64 operating system.

The last time I can remember something like this happening was the "browser wars" in the '90s, in which Netscape Communications was left as the only vendor who charged money for a browser.

Does this mean that Microsoft will soon be a shadow of its former self, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the likes of AOL?

With Microsoft's big mistake called VISTA a lot more people like me are going jump ship, and tell MS to stick it where the sun don't shine.
VISTA is going to be the undoing for MS.
I just hope to see more software maker make things that will work with Linux, come on Adobe get with the program.

I would like to see if even Microsoft could be put out of business. That guy saying the Internet is a threat to Microsoft's continued success and saying it in such a way to make believe that Microsoft could be put out of business - was just a dupe. I would like to see just how many businesses think they are in a free market economy and how many new computer, software and artificial intelligence companies think they can operate without Microsoft. Yes - we have no free market economy. There's just enough room to maneuver around Microsoft to give the illusion of that market. Anything Microsoft decides to have - it gets. No one in the world has any power to stop Microsoft from doing what it does. I won't use words like "boldly stolen" many great products that Microsoft has implemented into it's software systems but, we who have walked the Microsoft history from day one "KNOW" that so many new technologies created by privateers that wound up on the market and doing well - all of a sudden wind up under Microsoft's name and the gaul of it all - Microsoft would always call it their own and rename it for their namesake. The world has been duped by Microsoft and even the best minds of the best Japanese companies can't even out wit Microsoft. Microsoft lays so close to the line of deception that you can't really tell whether it's theirs or not and that part of the media is strangle hold controlled by Microsoft. I will venture to say that in the next year or so - everything that Linus Torvald's has created - will be owned, patented and copyrighted by Microsoft and somehow - Microsoft will show how it really created Linux to have an antagonist for Microsoft labeled products. All this Linux Torvald hype will be shown to be just a dupe on the masses to get them to buy more. I believe we will find that Microsoft is actually the recipient of all the product sales monies of Linux or anything that has Linux in it. This is the Microsoft I know. A Microsoft that gives millions of dollars away to charitable orginazations is only another image created to thwart the true underlying Microsoft and its creators. Just like Warren Buffet's giving away billions - in fact he doubled his money by doing so. Do you really think Microsoft would just "giveaway" billions to charity? I think not. That is not Microsoft's character or public image. The true Microsoft public image is one of a company that will stop at nothing to run the world and have your money and dupe you into lying images of goodness. That's my opinions and what I believe I see and understand - and I'm sticking to it.

This a very interesting article and one that is well written and thought out. Having said that, it should be obvious to the obove writers that this article and others like it will not somehow speed the defeat of Microsoft as an OS. How childish. Truthfully, open-source advocates should concentrate on making a good product (code that works) rather than wishing the doom of a competitor.

It seems that you (commenters) are more megalomaniacal than Microsoft even cares to be. Microsoft is a business, makes money, walks over people and dictates the meaning of "innovation," but they produce enterprise standards with their products. Sun, IBM, HP and Novell cannot say that anymore. And, unfortunately, SCO still produces world-class UNIX solutions (just like Sun and Samsung and Toshiba used to). There's a big difference between a UNIX system and a linux one, but SCO can only be blamed for having said something that linux users didn't like. Why cry about it now? MS is not an enemy, and it is not a hostile lethal force that seeks world domination. it is just another way of "getting the job done."

> Novell has patents that go right to the heart of
> Microsoft's precious Office business.

Irrelevant. Novell can't use those because it traded those away in the N-M agreement.

As usual, Matt, great analysis.

I just like to add what it seems to be an approach to decommoditize Linux.

These agreements create, in my view, two casts: blessed Linux and free/wild Linux. The wild one, without the agreements, is your very honest day-to-day Linux. The blessed one, besides implying the free is less worthy, will have an impact e.g. on procurement by governments. Mind you, government folks are a lot less worried with cost than with looking like "actively" abiding by legal aspects. These agreements are a way to threat buyers of legal action -- either from government or private businesses. Sometimes threat itself is enough to force such buyers to produce a requirement for blessed distros, "just to be on the safe side".

Of course, licensing costs can then be raised by the licensor to a level that, oh, look, the proprietay version is now cheaper. How intriguing!

A proper defense, in my view, would be fighting software patents (for this is primarily an oxymoron, as one cannot patent ideas) and specifically by government attorney action to reject the use of such criterion. But this latter is much slower to attain, unfortunately.

Thank you Matt. The following is not directed at you but to some of the commenters.

Let's just grant Steve Ballmer's wishes for a moment and make Linux and Open Source go away. So it's just Microsoft and Apple now. What do we have. No $3 dollar OS for the masses. A browser that is so full of security holes that any half-wit cracker can own your, strike that, the computer sitting on your desk that is owned by Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Quicktime, RealPlayer, AOL, Dell/HP/Gateway, Intel/AMD, and Ivan Badinoff. And that's just the browser. Microsoft is NOT a technology company, they're a money company. If they called themselves a tree company then they would own all the trees and it would be illegal to plant your own. If they called themselves a water company, then water would cost more than gasoline and there would be laws against drilling your own wells. Get the idea? Really. Microsoft is trying to make it illegal to write your own software. Follow their current strategy to its logical conclusion. Nobody sells Linux without Microsoft's permission. Oh, that will never happen you say. Most likely not. But only because there are a hell of a lot of people busting their collective asses try keep it from happening, not because there are a bunch of lazy-ass people blissfully clattering away at their keyboards pontificating on their empty theories. If you love Linux then don't give comfort to the enemy. If you are the enemy then present yourself as such.

This is truely unfortunate. M$ is starting to become the "bad guy" from a new Bond Movie.

Come on, they fit the profile:
A large corporation with a transparent monopoly, which has had the world in it's grasp all along. Think about it, computers run the world, the microsoft runs computers. A clever "update" over the web... think about how much damage that could do. How much people would do to stop that... Ditch M$ before it's too late.

Don't even talk about how Bill Gates donates money or that crap, because it's simply a clever ruse. This is the same man who advocates easier access to visa's so he can outsource his work. It all comes back to money.

Burn in hell Microsoft.

we started a Linux Debian anti-Microsoft shouting game and we ARE winning FAST!
WE WON
DEBIAN
MIR

"Irrelevant. Novell can't use those because it traded those away in the N-M agreement."

nope - they only traded away the right to sue each others customers - they can still sue each other all they want.

Observing the strong public response to Ubunto release of linux. Microsoft is more than concerned, Microsoft is SCARED

>> Novell has patents that go right to the heart of
>> Microsoft's precious Office business.

>Irrelevant. Novell can't use those because it >traded those away in the N-M agreement.
>Posted by: JoeS at April 21, 2007 06:38 AM

Actually, Joes, Novell didn't trade those rights away. Like many others, you may not have read the details of the Novell-MS deal. Novell pledged to not sure 'customers' of MS for violation of any patents that Novell hold. MS vice-versa. But Novell have always reserved the right to sue MS, if necessary, for any infringing patents. MS, I'm sure, would reserve the same rights.

Microsoft acts like fascists do! In business, democracy is nothing more than a obstacle to be removed!
The best thing to do is work in better and more user friendly desktop linux distro, with everyone working and sharing their knowledge, only with the aim of sharing the Human Knowledge, which don't belong to anyone but to everybody!
Or could MS make anything without Archimedes theorem, Euclides geometry or The Jollliot-Curie research, only speaking of three of thousands and thousands of researchers!

Wow. You think Open Source = Anyone can edit code.

>Today, I woke up with the startling realization >that Microsoft is the only vendor still charging >money for a robust x86/x64 operating system.

What about MACOSX - AMigaOS / Zeta OS ... ? BTW M$ is on its way down starting with introduction of Vista...

JT wrote, "Today, I woke up with the startling realization that Microsoft is the only vendor still charging money for a robust x86/x64 operating system."

Does this mean Mac OS/X, Red Hat, and Suse aren't robust?

Frankly I don't think they're that evil. When there are billions at stake, I'm not even sure I could trust the Pope.

Like most mega-corporations, Microsoft has forgotted that they exist for their customers. Instead they think they exist for the benefit of their stock-holders and see the customes as an "revenue resource" to be manipulated and controlled.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, as long as it is balanced by consumerism. This is the heart of the supply and demand concept. The problem with Microsoft is that they seek total control of all potential customers by any and every means available, including legal and technological methods of restricting access to their claimed "revenue source". This is blatent anti-consumerism, and is the hallmark of what we call a monopoly.
There is another point to consider. This is the concept of limiting factors. Microsoft seems determined on preventing any programmer from being able to author quality native code. This reduces the chances of someone developing software that can directly compete with Microsoft. Over the nearly 30 years that Microsoft has been pushing expensive, often low quality compilers and interpreters on the public, the percentage of system programmers have dropped. Eventually no-one in the world will be available to write new software for Microsoft.
This is why it is imperative for Microsoft to push every-one to a subscription software licensing model, and to push for lawmakers to force this model on all computer users. That way, they will not have to create more code, but will just raise subscription rates when they decide to make more money.