Can Linux Trust Microsoft?
A little while ago I had breezed through a few news stories with this general theme but never got around to actually writing about it, so, here it is, enjoy.
Several tech sites have picked up articles concerning Microsoft’s attempts at playing nice with Linux. Good old MS has decided they are going to extend the olive branch and try and make everything better. In thinking about this I couldn’t help but remember a certain story. There was an old fable of a scorpion and a fox which applies to this situation and it goes something like this:
Once upon a time a fox came to a river intent on crossing it. At the bank was a scorpion who asked the fox if he would allow him to ride across the river on his back. Never, said the fox, for you will sting me and I shall drown. But he relented when the scorpion promised not to harm him. Midway through the river the fox felt a burning pain as the scorpion stung him. With his dying breath he asked the scorpion why he did that because now both of them will drown. The scorpion replied “It is my nature.”
For all of the pretty words and sweet nothings they are whispering in the ears of the Linux community I still can’t help but feel that the boys in Redmond are a bunch of lying pigs. But I could be wrong. Though I am sure Beeblebrox will disagree with me no matter what I say (joke, that was a joke, please no flames).
Think for a moment, if you will, what does Microsoft stand to gain by increasing interoperability and embracing standards? I can see how it benefits Linux but I am not seeing how this would help Microsoft. Or rather I should say I can’t see how this helps Microsoft enough to offset the gains Linux would get out of this deal. I look at it and sometimes it almost seems to good to be true.
And with that statement all of the red flags should go up. When has MS ever been known to do anything that helped the competition? Another way of looking at it is when was the last time Microsoft “patterned, assisted, helped, worked with” whatever, some company and that company benefitted in the long run?
Generally speaking, Microsoft’s strategy towards perceived opponents has been to do whatever they can to drive them out of business. If that means stealing their technology then they will do it. If that means using their monopoly to crush a rival well then consider them crushed. Ever since the Justice Dept. caved in things have been much easier here in the states for MS. Recently there have been a long string of successful lawsuits brought against MS that, in their most basic form, fit this pattern: Business X partnered with MS. Things went well for a while until MS blatantly stole their (pick one) design/code/idea/whatever. Business X now has two choices, cut their losses or attempt to sue MS for how ever many years it will take to win in court. Now, these lawsuits haven’t been over trivial issues either, nor have they been settled for pocket change (in recent years it has cost MS almost 5 billion dollars to settle its court cases). These are serious allegations that ultimately turn into ugly court battles. And for those of you who might not believe me, or want more proof, you can see the fruits of my labor as I googled for Microsoft lawsuits.
MS sued over . . .
Yet MS continues to act illegally, why? The simple answer is that in the long run it’s worth it. MS steals your idea, then 4 years later loses in court and has to pay you $500 million for your troubles. Does that really matter if your idea is incorporated into one of their major products and thus makes the company billions? Not hardly.
I bring this matter up because any company who deals with Microsoft has to be aware of the fact that they could turn on them at any moment. You might profit from the partnership initially but there is never a real sense of trust. Because if Microsoft decides they want to enter the space your company competes in then they will ruthlessly attempt to drive your company into the ground.
Some of you might think I am being over dramatic or mistaking windmills for giants, let me assure you I am not. Say, ever heard of a little company called Adobe? They make a couple popular apps that several people who run Windows use. In fact, they have worked with MS a long time and have contributed some great programs to the platform. One should be a little surprised then to find that Microsoft has decided to go after Adobe’s PDF format with their own format. Hum, sounds like the beginning of a long war with Adobe. Lets just hope that they don’t bundle a free Photoshop replacement with Longhorn, because that would be a direct shot across Adobe’s bow, don’t you think?
So, if MS can betray Adobe and destroy hundreds of other companies, why would anyone think it can’t happen to Linux? My advice to any Linux distro thinking that maybe they should take a look at what MS is offering is this: RUN AWAY! It’s a trick, a ploy and if you fall for it that will just give MS more time and more leverage to wipe you out.
Time will tell what type of danger lurks behind all of those pretty words and flashy smiles, so, in the meantime Linux I would watch my back.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I agree that the Linux community should very much beware of Microsoft, but the way you paint Microsoft.. you could use the same brush on Apple.
Apple have had their fair share of lawsuits against them too. So why do they continue to act illegally too? Are Apple therefore as bad as MS?
And Apple’s treatment of it’s friends has at times been worse than MS’s treatment of it’s enemies!
Don’t be surprised if MS do the right thing by Konfabulator, and buy them out - rather than release a competing technology as Apple did. And remember - you heard that prediction (MS to buy K) here first.
Good insight into the evil empire. I agree that anyone partnering with MSFT is out of their mind, but I don’t think this applies much to Linux. No one distro of Linux could do anything to the entire Linux community. It is an open source OS and no single entity has total ownership, so MSFT will never be able to pull the shenanigans they have pulled on other companies in the past.
As to Chris’s comments…Apple has indeed done some questionable things in it’s chase for world dominance. However, Apple’s market share is far from making it a monopoly. Konfabulator has a great product, but Apple hardly stole their technology. Apple had clearly been working on a Konfabulator style application layer within it’s OS X for quite some time. Do you think it might be coincidence that Konfabulator’s developer worked at Apple in the UI department for some time?
Rather than re-hash old news, you can get the real scoop on that here:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator
I do hope that MSFT buys Konfabulator, it would be good (financially speaking) for the guys who made it. Although we all know that Konfabulator would cease to exist in its current form and we can all forget about future releases on the Mac. If a developer wants to sell their sould to the devil, that is their right. Hopefully they would sell off Konfab and come right back to the Mac and develop some more cool apps. Many of us helped those guys by buying their software and getting them to where they are today. Mac users are loyal and a tight-knit community. I don’t think Windows developers will ever experience that level of community in anything they do.
Bisonium… Hmmmm? So Apple’s actions can be justified because they don’t have a market monopoly? So if my kid is the littlest in school, he’s allowed to beat up any other kid he wants?
As a site who’s claim is “A serious yet irreverent look at all things Apple”, we should be talking about Apple. This piece forgot to mention Apple. I just sought to bring Apple into the picture and put them under the same microscope. And truth is, it’s not a perfect picture.
So Apple’s actions can be justified because they don’t have a market monopoly?
While what Apple did to Konfabulator was definitely scumbaggy, and I can’t imagine anyone defending those actions had MS attempted such a thing (and in fact, MS has pulled this very thing numerous times in the past), there IS an important legal difference between what any company can do and what a company with a monopoly on the market can do.
For example, MS including a free browser and driving competitive browsers out of business (or forcing them to give their away for free) is different than Apple giving away a free browser on OS X. Apple’s anemic market share in both OS’s and browsers is simply no threat to alternative software.
Likewise, there is a difference between Apple closing off its portable mp3 technology in both ITMS and Ipods than there is if someone else did it. Because Apple already controls about 75% of that market, a virtual monopoly, its actions limit customer choices when choosing portable music players and an online store at which to purchase downloadable music.
As a site who’s claim is “A serious yet irreverent look at all things Apple”, we should be talking about Apple.
In defense of this site, there are a few article contributors who DO often take a somewhat (and that’s relative, obviously) irreverent look at all things Apple. James, of course, doesn’t happen to be one of them. In fact, just try being anything OTHER than absolutely reverent to all things Apple and you get insults, racist comments, and other epithets hurled your way.
Here are a few responses:
1. Chris Howard
You are right, Apple has had its share of lawsuits. And, at times, they have acted in a reprehensible manner. The treatment of the Apple Authorized Resellers comes to mind. So please don’t think for a moment that I blindly justify everything they do, every company needs to be watched and prosecuted for illegal acts, even Apple.
As to your idea about about Konfabulator I found nothing wrong with what Apple did nor do I think MS will buy them out either. In fact, I would be surprised if MS released anything like it anytime soon.
2. Bisonium
Thanks for the link to Daring Fireball, I found that piece very informative in dispelling the “Apple stole Konfabulator” myth. However, I do agree with Chris when he says that market share should never excuse one from being punished for illegal acts.
3. Chris Howard
I didn’t mention Apple in this piece because Apple wasn’t trying to partner with Linux. I thought this might be a nice change of pace from the usual Apple related articles that we normally see here. But let me say again that I hold Apple up to the same standard as any other company. If they break the law they should be punished for it. And the truth is that Apple isn’t a perfect company and shouldn’t be followed blindly.
4. Beeb
First, Apple had every right to create Dashboard and not compensate the makers of Konfabulator. Their concept of widgets is 20 years old if it’s a day. Further more, if you read that Daring Fireball story you would see that Apple didn’t steal the implementation of the concept either.
Second, you are mistaken in your opinion concerning the iPod. Apple can get away with certain practices that MS can’t because it provides the entire solution. This is unlike MS which only provides one part of the whole.
5. Beeb
Ok, I think you might be misinformed on the definition of “irreverent”, it means lacking in respect. So, when you say I am NOT being irreverent you are in fact stating that I am writing respectful articles. Clearly that is not what you meant. Maybe you should take some time and attempt to clarify your insults. But thanks for the comments all the same.
So, when you say I am NOT being irreverent you are in fact stating that I am writing respectful articles.
Not dignify the deliberate misinterpretation of my comment, but reverence means a PROFOUND respect or veneration; in this case, for all things Apple. And your problem isn’t just the reverence for Apple, or even the total lack of any irreverence (for Apple that is; you’ve got scads of it for other races and people question your inane posts); it’s the utterly hostile way in which you react to the very irreverence that this site is supposed to be about.
Btw, I’m half Asian, just in case you want to break out some more racist responses to any of my comments, when and if you run out of insults about my education.
First, Apple had every right to create Dashboard and not compensate the makers of Konfabulator. Their concept of widgets is 20 years old if it’s a day.
And I guess MS had every right to create Windows and not compensate Apple? After all, the concept of the GUI was at least as old as Xerox Parc’s version of it. No? You say Windows is still a rip off of the Mac OS? Me too.
That Daring Fireball article is just a long apologist diatribe for excusing Apple for doing exactly what Apple users have long accused MS (and everyone else) of doing.
The argument is built on two premises: that widgets have been around for twenty years, and that because Dashboard is completely different “under the hood” that Konfabulator has no case.
On the latter point, Apple and its apologists have no leg to stand on. When Apple sued MS for stealing the Mac OS, they built their case on “look and feel,” not the underlying technology, which was certainly completely different. They sued because Windows LOOKED the same as the Mac OS. Well, one gander at Konfabulator and Dashboard, and the similarity of the look and feel is unmistakable.
The other point, that Apple had apps similar to Konfab way back in 1984, meaning that they didn’t get the idea for WIDGETS from Konfabulator, is specious at best. Which is the more likely scenario, that Apple, completely oblivious to Konfabulator, looked back on its desktop accessories from twenty years ago and decided, coincidentaly and on its own, that they needed to add them to Tiger? Or that they saw the success of Konfabulator on OS X and decided to implement something just like it in their new upcoming release?
Plus, and this is no small point, they are called WIDGETS, not desktop accessories, not gadgets (the original name) but WIDGETS, which is exactly what Konfabulator calls its apps.
Would Konfabulator win a lawsuit against Apple or would this case hold up in court? I don’t know. After all, Apple lost its lawsuit against MS. But I don’t think there’s any question that MS borrowed liberally from the Mac OS, just as Apple borrowed liberally from Xerox Parc and borrowed Dashboard from Konfabulator.
Cool! Now that we’ve brought Apple into this discussion, we can get back to the point of the article.
On it, I suspect that the biggest danger of Linux sleeping with the enemy is not that MS will put them out of business, but rather, like they have done with Adobe, Apple and many others, get them under their thumb.
MS like to control. If what they are trying to control becomes a threat, then they either buy it out (eg Foxpro), or crush it (eg Netscape).
I have no doubt that both Adobe, Apple, Symantec and others tread carefully around Microsoft.
Linux currently doesn’t have to play that game and you’re right, James, for that reason they should be very wary of MS.
But I do think the Linux ‘beast” is one that cannot be tamed by anyone - even MS.