On Dec 12, 7:08 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> If you need proof of Microsoft et al are seizing Digg, this bigot may be one.
>
> Related:
>
> http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03...
http://tinyurl.com/34uo79
Excellent link. Although the memo was dated January 2000, I think the
actual attachments are quite a bit older. Microsoft's Technology
Evangelism campaigns date back to the mid 1990s. References to
Novel's UNIX, for example, indicate a date that is probably around
1994-1996, since Novell had sold Unix (or unlimited distribution
rights and source code) to SCO in 1996. IIRC.
Some favorite quotes
<quote>Evangelism Is War
Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de-facto
standards throughout the computer industry. Our enemies are the
vendors of platforms that compete with ours; Netscape, Sun, IBM,
Oracle, Lotus, etc. The field of battle is the software industry.
Success is measured in shipping applications. Every line of code that
is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code
that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total
victory, for DRG, is the universal adoption of our standards by
developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for
Microsoft itself: "A computer on every desk and in every home, running
Microsoft software".
Our weapons are psychological, economic, and political - not
military. No one is forced to adopt our standards at the barrel of a
gun. We can only convince, not compel. Those who adopt our standards
to so as a rational decision to serve their own ends, whetever those
may be. It is our job to ensure that those choosing an operating
system are presented with an overwhelming abundance of evidence and
reasoned argument in favor of our standards - so overwhelming that the
choice of our standards seems obvious, or (ideally) that the developer
is not even aware that a decision was faced, and a choice made.
We do this by understanding the barriers that might otherwise prevent
a developer from adopting our standards, and removing them; by
understanding the inducements that might facilitate the developer's
adoption of our standards, and providing them; by understanding the
arguments of our competiton, and countering them.
</quote>
<quote>
Our Mission
The charter of Microsoft's Developer Relations Group is clear
Drive the success of Microsoft's platforms by creating a critical
mass
of third party software applications and business solutions.
This mission statement contains both the goal which we ar estriving to
achiev (the success of Microsoft's platforms) as well as the means by
which we are to achieve it (by creating a critical mass of third-party
applications and business solutions).
</quote>
Further down
<quote>
Our Enemies
Some have claimed that Microsoft has a monopoly on the market for
operating systems designed for personal computers. This is patently
untrue. IBM's OS/2, Apple's MacOS, Novell's Unix and Netware,
Taligent's CommonPoint, Netscape's Navigator, and other operating
systems (or embryonic operating systems), all compete with Windows in
the struggle for applications and business solutions. This is true
for our platforms as well (Exchange/Notes, OLE/OpenDoc, Office/
SmartSuite, etc.)
</quote>
This would indicate that this document was probably written in 1993 or
1994, shortly after Novell had purchased Unix from AT&T, but before
IBM had purchased Lotus. The reference to Netscape's Navigator would
indicate late 1994, since Netscape's Communicator, introduced shortly
after Windows 95, was the bigger threat - especially to Word and
Office.
Could the "embryonic operating systems" mentioned be Linux and
FreeBSD?
<quote>
The Measure of Success
The process of evangelism is measured in the mass of shipping
applications that support Microsoft's platforms. Those applications
that support a given platform, move it closer to critical mass, and
thus count as successes; those that support a competing platform, move
it away from critical mass, and thus count as defeats
</quote>
<quote>
Microsoft has many platforms, and what appears to be a victory for one
Microsoft platform may appear to be a defeat for another. If OLE is
successsful on the Macintosh (making Macintosh applications more
powerful), is that a victory for OLE, or a defeat for Windows? If the
Windows API is successful on Unix (making Unix applications less
expensive to develop), is that a victory for the Win32 API, or a
defeat for Windows NT
</quote>
Again, this would indicate that the original document was probably
written in 1994.
Not how the propagation of Linux and Java APIs completely subverts
this strategy. Now that the Microsoft strategy has been made public,
developers are totally aware of it, and many developers are
deliberately choosing "Multiplatform" solutions, including Java, GTK,
and cygwin/OSS APIs and programming languages such as PERL, Ruby, and
even C# for Mono.
<quote>
Diversionary attacks, holding actions, and retreats may seem contrary
to the achievement of the overall objective when considered solely in
their own terms, but taken in light of the overall conflict, may
contribute to the overall success. In the Chinese Civil War that
followed World War II, Mao Tse Tung's Army ran away from every battle,
until they won the war. They know that overall victory, not local
victory, was the objective.
Thus it is imperative to measure each action in accordance with it's
contribution to overall, not just local, victory.
</quote>
<quote>
Victory
"A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft
software". This is the mission statement of Microsoft itself; it is
the definition of the conditions under which Microsoft itself can
declare overall victory".
</quote>
<quote>
Definition of Evangelism at Microsoft
"Evangelism is the art and science of getting developers to ship
products that support Microsoft's platforms.".
</quote>
Add "Exclusively".
I also like the slide
"We're Just Here to Help Developers" with the big circle and slash to
say NOT!
The next slide says
"We Are Here to Help MICROSOFT".
Here is a great slide that is obviously practiced here.
<quote>
Attack the Enemy's Plans
- Do not attack directly
- No debates, no white papers, no lawsuits
- Do the unexpected; attack his assumptions.
Based on this slide, it's pretty easy to see which of the posters to
COLA have seen this document (or something like it) before.
It looks like the slide show might be a bit later, since it mentions
support of OLE on Win95. Microsoft later introduced COM to derail
Win32 API implementations such as WABI.
More from the playbook on page 36.
<quote>
Victory Conditions
- You win when the enemy quits
- and not before
- What will cause the enemy to quit?
- Lack of support
- Public humiliation
- Low return on investment
- Nothing
- Don't start fighting, until you can identify when you've won
</quote>
We have certainly seen many of those plays from the WinTrolls in this
group.
The rest of the link is also worth reading, especially sections like
Jihad
The Slog
Critical Mass
Mopping up
It's also interesting to see the Appendices as well.
So many of the "bridging" technologies, such as WABI, NT on PowerPC,
and related technologies were used to bait competitors into adopting
Microsoft's technology, only to have the rug pulled out from under
them the minute that Microsoft's objectives were achieved.
The Internet Authoring tools agreement is a classic. It clearly shows
that Microsoft sought to deliberately sabotage other Web browsers, and
related technology. This was dated through 1997 or the release of
Explorer 4.0, whichever is later.
In this agreement, the company had to build a web site that issued
warning, broke other web browsers, and pretty much FORCE would-be
customers to use Internet Explorer. Ironically, all of those who
accepted these agreements were partners in illegal collusion, a
violation of the Clayton act.
Eventually, the strategy backfired. IE 4.0 exposed the user to
numerous forms of malware which enabled the spread of viruses, enabled
malicious hackers to hijack computers, read confidential files, or
install malicious software. Since that time, over 250,000 viruses
have been able to successfully attack Windows, many were spread by the
technology introduced in IE 4.0.
Perhaps one of the reasons for the success of Firefox was that it did
NOT support many of these "back door" technologies.
|
|
