fud

Peter Galli printed a fair article questioning Microsoft’s slicing and dicing of raw IDC numbers.

Here is the full text of my response to his original article:

Fundamentally this particular study will over-count Windows share and undercount Linux. Al Gillen at IDC, who we have a lot of respect for, says this himself in your article. Why is Linux so under-counted in this research?

1. This study looks at pre-installed servers. Many people buy bare
servers and install Linux on them. Many people are recycling old
Unix or Windows servers and installing Linux on them. These
servers are not counted in this study — it’s no fault of IDC,
it’s merely impossible to do so.

2. This study only looks at x86 servers. Huge Linux growth on other
architectures like mainframes, P-series, etc has been widely
reported by IDC and others. Of course when you discount other
architectures Linux does well on and focus on the /one/ Microsoft
excels at, you’ll get highly favorable rates for Microsoft.

3. This study fails to consider the impact virtualization has had on
server shipments. Customers are optimizing boxes they have already
purchased via virtualization. Since Linux is considered the better
platform for virtualization, this impacts its numbers even more. I
don’t think customers are complaining that they are getting more
out of the investments they have already made.

4. This study was confined to the US market. Linux growth worldwide
is even more impressive than the numbers cited here and would
certainly contradict the overall point made by this argument.
Again the data is diced in such a way to paint the most favorable
scenario for Microsoft.

Every piece of research, no matter the talents or commitment of the researcher, has a margin for error. Because the margin for error is higher in this study for the reasons above, it’s a stretch to take a few quarters and proclaim it a trend. There really is no empirical data that we can find that justifies the “low hanging fruit” trend cited in your article.

Growth rates are always sensational so I’m not surprised you’re quoting them here, but let’s put it into perspective. The Linux server market is now a $7.7B business - it’s hard to grow big markets like that at 30% indefinitely especially when the overall server market has been slowed in recent years. Of course Linux growth will slow as it becomes more and more predominantly used.

As for Mr. Hilf’s experience with Linux only be used in web server and high performance computing workloads, I don’t agree with him (even though I am happy to see him talk about Linux used in HPC environments – this is quite a change!). We also talk to many Linux customers around the world and find that Linux is being used for ERP/CRM, application development, file and print and many other workloads. Just ask Novell and Red Hat for customer references. I would be interested in hearing from IDC what they are seeing from their data on this issue or work with them directly to find this out. I think this would be superior than relying on Mr. Hilf’s analysis.

But make no mistake: we’re not Pollyannas — Microsoft is doing very well. They have a huge incumbent position. They have unbelievable resources they put toward marketing (this being just one example.) They have kept interoperability information propriety (such as in file and print) to hinder competition. They are a hugely successful software company who will do anything it can to squash the competition, in this case Linux. Linux’ success against such a well-placed, well-stocked competitor has been phenomenal so far, but we all certainly need to keep up the innovation if we want to continue to put pressure on them. Microsoft will only increase its offensive against Linux, especially as Linux and Open Office threaten its two cash cows. We are prepared for that and are confident that over time customers want the freedom of choice that only open source can provide.

Amanda

Popularity: 43% [?]

Monday morning started out well — a continuation of the sunny day we had Sunday, a few hours to concentrate on my actual work — until the phone rang. Microsoft had unleashed a FUD storm with more vague patent threats. While a few articles have been published with Linux Foundation statements, I wanted to elaborate on our public comments so far.

First of all, customers we talk to know Microsoft is too smart of a company to take a page out of the SCO handbook and sue their own business partners and customers. Before believing the Microsoft saber rattling machine ask yourself two questions: would Microsoft sue its own customers? Is Microsoft certain they have not infringed upon the patents of the companies who represent the entire open source ecosystem?

There is just as much potential patent infringement in Windows than there is in open source, or any other operating system. Microsoft is certainly not the only owner of patents in this area, and perhaps not even the owner of the largest number of patents, in these areas. Microsoft will need to be careful what it starts, given that it cannot know where this will end. I think most knowledgeable software users see this posturing for what it is: empty threats from a scared giant whose monopoly is being challenged.

Granted, if you were making $1billion in profit *per month,* how would you react? Because that’s precisely how much Microsoft makes per month on its Windows and Office monopolies, both of which are directly and substaintially threatened by Linux and Open Office.

Second, let’s ask ourselves why Linux is being singled out here, and not AIX or Solaris or any other operating system. I’m not a lawyer, but patents cover functionality, not the way the technology is distributed. Their focus on Linux and OpenOffice shows two things: 1. how much Linux and Open Office threatens them and 2. that this is an aggressive PR campaign and nothing else. In fact, we think of this as merely an extension of their advertising campaigns. I’ve worked at large public relations agencies for large clients: I know how the Microsoft PR machine works. It’s incredibly well funded and well run. They have generated a lot of clips with this PR blitz, but fortunately for us, more reporters and journalists are seeing through these tactics.

Microsoft, our members and software users know that a patent war guarantees only one sure outcome: mutually assured destruction for all involved. By leveling vague threats against open source, Microsoft hopes to extend their monopoly a little longer. Given that every day Microsoft makes $34,000,000 in profit, it’s not surprising Microsoft resorts to a well-orchestrated, well-funded PR campaign to scare software users, especially when those software users are recognizing that open source is simply a better way to develop software.

I urge everyone to see this for what it is: a FUD campaign. Don’t let Microsoft or anyone else get away it it.

~ Amanda McPherson

Popularity: 39% [?]