[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [linux-team] Empire Strikes Back
Voici le contenu de ce document
Alain
{ The Halloween Document -- 1.7}
Open Source Software
A (New?) Development Methodology
{ The body of the Halloween Document is an internal strategy memorandum on
Microsoft's possible responses to the Linux/Open Source
phenomenon.
Microsoft has publicly acknowledged that this memorandum is authentic, but
dismissed it as a mere engineering study that does not define
Microsoft policy.
However, the list of collaborators mentioned at the end includes some
people who are known to be key players at Microsoft, and the document
reads as though the research effort had the cooperation of top management;
it may even have been commissioned as a policy white paper for
Bill Gates's attention (the author seems to have expected that Gates would
read it).
Either way, it provides us with a very valuable look past Microsoft's
dismissive marketing spin about Open Source at what the company is
actually thinking -- which, as you'll see, is an odd combination of
astuteness and institutional myopia.
Despite some speculation that this was an intentional leak, there seems
quite unlikely. The document is too damning; portions could be
condsidered evidence of anti-competitive practices for the DOJ lawsuit.
Also, the author ``refused to confirm or deny'' when initially contacted,
suggesting that Microsoft didn't have its story worked out in advance.
Since the author quoted my analyses of open-source community dynamics (The
Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere)
extensively, it seems fair that I should respond on behalf of the
community. :-)
Key Quotes:
Here are some notable quotes from the document, with hotlinks to where they
are embedded. It's helpful to know that ``OSS'' is the author's
abbreviation for ``Open Source Software''. FUD, a characteristic Microsoft
tactic, is explained here.
* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to
Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic
parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not
replicable with our current licensing model and therefore
present a long term developer mindshare threat.
* Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence
... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by
OSS projects.
* ...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a
process rather than a company.
* OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat
it.
* Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more
credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if
not more -- than commercial alternatives. The Internet provides an
ideal, high-visibility showcase for the OSS world.
* Linux has been deployed in mission critical, commercial environments
with an excellent pool of public testimonials. ... Linux
outperforms many other UNIXes ... Linux is on track to eventually own
the x86 UNIX market ...
* Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server
applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized,
simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new
protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
* The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness the collective
IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is
simply amazing. More importantly, OSS evangelization scales with the
size of the Internet much faster than our own
evangelization efforts appear to scale.
How To Read This Document:
Comments in green, surrounded by curly brackets, are me (Eric S. Raymond).
I have highlighted what I believe to be key points in the original
text by turning them red. I have inserted comments near these key points;
you can skim the document by surfing through this comment index in
sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
I've embedded a few other comments in green that aren't associated with key
points and aren't indexed. These additional comments are only of
interest if you're reading the entire document.
I have otherwise left the document completely as-is (not even correcting
typos), so you can read what Bill Gates is reading about Open Source.
It's a bit long, but persevere. An accurate fix on the opposition's
thinking is worth some effort -- and there are one or two really startling
insights
buried in the corporatespeak.
Threat Assessment:
I believe that far and away the the most dangerous tactic advocated in this
memorandum is that embodied in the sinister phrase
``de-commoditize protocols''.
If publication of this document does nothing else, I hope it will alert
everyone to the stifling of competition, the erosion of consumer choice, the
higher costs, and the monopoly lock-in that this tactic implies.
The parallel with Microsoft's attempted hijacking of Java, and its attempts
to spoil the ``write once, run anywhere'' potential of this technology,
should be obvious.
I have included an extended discussion of this point in my interlinear
comments. To prevent this tactic from working, I believe open-source
advocates must begin emphasizing these points:
1.Buyers like being in a commodity market. Sellers dislike it.
2.Commodity services and protocols are good for customers; they're less
expensive, they promote competition, they generate good
choices.
3."De-commoditizing" protocols means reducing choice, raising prices,
and suppressing competition.
4.Therefore, for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose.
5.Open source pushes -- indeed relies upon -- commodity services and
protocols. It is therefore in harmony with consumer interests.
History:
The first (1.1) annotated version of the VinodV memorandum was prepared
over the weekend of 31 Oct-1 Nov 1998. It is in recognition of the
date, and my fond hope that publishing it will help realize Microsoft's
worst nightmares, that I named it the ``Halloween Document"'.
The 1.2 version featured cleanup of non-ASCII characters.
The 1.3 version noted Microsoft's acknowledgement of authenticity.
The 1.4 version added a bit more analysis and the section on Threat
Assessment.
The 1.5 version added some bits to the preamble.
The 1.6 version added more to one of the comments.
The 1.7 version added the reference to the Fuzz papers. }
Vinod Valloppillil (VinodV)
Aug 11, 1998 -- v1.00
Microsoft Confidential
Table of Contents
Table of Contents *
Executive Summary *
Open Source Software *
What is it? *
Software Licensing Taxonomy *
Open Source Software is Significant to Microsoft *
History *
Open Source Process *
Open Source Development Teams *
OSS Development Coordination *
Parallel Development *
Parallel Debugging *
Conflict resolution *
Motivation *
Code Forking *
Open Source Strengths *
OSS Exponential Attributes *
Long-term credibility *
Parallel Debugging *
Parallel Development *
OSS = `perfect' API evangelization / documentation *
Release rate *
Open Source Weaknesses *
Management Costs *
Process Issues *
Organizational Credibility *
Open Source Business Models *
Secondary Services *
Loss Leader -- Market Entry *
Commoditizing Downstream Suppliers *
First Mover -- Build Now, $$ Later *
Linux *
What is it? *
Linux is a real, credible OS + Development process *
Linux is a short/medium-term threat in servers *
Linux is unlikely to be a threat on the desktop *
Beating Linux *
Netscape *
Organization & LIcensing *
Strengths *
Weaknesses *
Predictions *
Apache *
History *
Organization *
Strengths *
Weaknesses *
IBM & Apache *
Other OSS Projects *
Microsoft Response *
Product Vulnerabilities *
Capturing OSS benefits -- Developer Mindshare *
Capturing OSS benefits -- Microsoft Internal Processes *
Extending OSS benefits -- Service Infrastructure *
Blunting OSS attacks *
Other Interesting Links *
Acknowledgments *
Revision History *
Open Source Software
A (New?) Development Methodology
Executive Summary
Open Source Software (OSS) is a development process which
promotes rapid creation and deployment of
incremental features and bug fixes in an existing code /
knowledge base. In recent years, corresponding to the
growth of Internet, OSS projects have acquired the depth &
complexity traditionally associated with commercial
projects such as Operating Systems and mission critical
servers.
Consequently, OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and
platform threat to Microsoft -- particularly in server
space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea
exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable
with our current licensing model and therefore present a
long term developer mindshare threat.
{ OK, this establishes that Microsoft isn't asleep at the
switch. }
However, other OSS process weaknesses provide an avenue for
Microsoft to garner advantage in key feature
A 11:05 4/11/98 +0100, vous avez écrit :
>>Kaixo !
>>
>>Microsoft est aux abois:
>>
>>http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
>>
>Pour ceux qui comme moi n'ont pas accès au web, serait-il possible de
>poster le contenu de cette page ? Ca m'interresse :-)
>Merci,
>
>- Rémi LETOT -
>---------
>This message was send by Majordomo 1.94.3. Please repport problems to
>manu@rtfm.be. If you want to be deleted from the list, send a mail to
>majordomo@rtfm.be with "unsubscribe linux-team" in the body.
>
---------
This message was send by Majordomo 1.94.3. Please repport problems to
manu@rtfm.be. If you want to be deleted from the list, send a mail to
majordomo@rtfm.be with "unsubscribe linux-team" in the body.