Subject: RE: Microsoft A leaked memo outlines the company's strategy again st Linux and open source software (and posible open internet standards ?: -)

From: Thomas Dineen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:37:14 -0800 (PST)

So what's the problem?
   
   This sounds like normal competitive business to me!
   
   Why are we talking, or whining, about this for sooooo many days?
   
Thomas Dineen

>> Microsoft's Halloween scare 
>> 
>> A leaked memo outlines the company's strategy against Linux and open
>> source software.  
>> 
>> The Halloween Document's game plan for Microsoft?
>> "De-commoditize protocols & applications: 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." 
>> English translation? Microsoft can fight open
>> source software by adopting its open standards and
>> protocols and then modifying them -- perhaps offering new
>> features, but mostly making the Microsoft versions incompatible with
>> the "free" versions. 
>> 
>> Sound familiar? This is the same strategy Microsoft has used
>> repeatedly in its long history to defend its market, most recently
>> in its move onto the Internet. The company calls it "embrace
>> and extend"; its opponents view it as more like "copy and corrupt."
>>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:45:44 -0500

>    This sounds like normal competitive business to me!

There's a difference between building a better train that runs on
standard-width tracks, and building one that uses tracks 2 inches
wider and then convincing people that the fact that their trains
won't work on your tracks because their trains are too narrow
is their fault, not yours.

There's a reason why track widths were standardized.

There's a reason why protocols are standardized.

It's the same reason, basically.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:45:44 -0500

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus André Färber)
Date: 06 Nov 1998 21:50:00 +0100

>    This sounds like normal competitive business to me!

No it isn't.

If a company writes software that does not conform to standards or  
provides extensions that don't, noone will use this software or the  
extensions. This is normal competitive business.

If a company writes software that does not conform to standards or  
provides extensions that don't and many people use this odd software ans  
extensions and other people get complaints about being incompatible with  
the non-conforming software by being conforming themselves or about  
being incompatible with these non-standard extensions, then something is  
very wrong.[2]

Writing broken software and making the lack of compliance the de-facto  
standard is only possible for monopolists or monopolist-like companies.  
Smaller software vendors would just fail with such a product strategy.

Standards must be written in a way that allow any company to understand  
and implment them, not only the companies that invented the proposed  
standards. Same for extensions to standards.

Yes, it is competitive business to write new protocols that are better  
than the existing ones. However, you can't pretend that these are the  
IETF standard protocols any longer. And you can't use your very large  
marketshare to promote your flavour of the protocol.

This is not competivie business (which means the "best"[1] protocol/ 
product wins) but the opposite (i.e. not the "best" protocol/product  
wins but the one that was written by the same vendors that happen to  
have a big marketshare in anouther sector so that competitors don't have  
a chance).

[1] Whatever "best" means. For standards, that could include openness  
and KISSness. For products, that could be closeness to the (open and  
simple) standard.
[2] Some people say this has already happened with HTML -- which is not  
only Microsoft's fault but at least equally that of Netscape.

--
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.muc.de/~cfaerber/> Fax: +49_8061_3361
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E  25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus André Färber)
Date: 06 Nov 1998 21:50:00 +0100

No it isn't.