Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Enjoy.
>
> http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
>
> “There’s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of
> Harper’s magazine about panels, audits, and experts. It is called
> CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class
> action suit in Iowa. Here’s a paragraph from a document admitted into
> evidence, called “Generalized Evangelism Timeline,” about guerrilla
> or evangelical marketing:
>
> Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our
> technology is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’
> reports should be issued, praising your technology and damning the
> competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent consultants should write
> articles, give conference presentations, moderate stacked panels on our
> behalf, and set themselves up as experts in the new technology,
> available for just $200/hour. “Independent” academic sources should
> be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).
>
> They advise cultivating “experts” early and recommending that they
> not publish anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as
> “independent” later on, when they’re needed. This type of
> evangelical or guerilla marketing is apparently quite common in the
> high-tech fields, and seems to be used liberally by open source
> developers.
>
> The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a
> panel is being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find
> “pliable” moderators–those who will sell out.
>
> It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
> countless “hearings,” in which hundreds of citizens would testify
> before a panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry
> “experts.” When a panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a
> foregone conclusion. As with elections, they don’t leave anything to
> chance.” (a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096
> “Evangelism is War” from Comes v. Microsoft).
Thanks for pointing out this document dated January 2000. Here I found
this interesting:
On PDF Page 10 (where 10 is the actual PDF page number, not document
page number), there is a statement with slashed circle stating, "We're
Just Here to Help Developers".
PDF Page 11 has a replacement statement, "We Are Here to Help MICROSOFT".
Page 12 of the PDF has a slide with statements:
[quote]
Evangelism is WAR!
o Mission
- Establish Microsoft's platforms as de facto standards
o Enemies
- Other platform vendors
o Battlefield
- ISV Mindshare
o Progress
- Shipping ISV applications
[/quote]
One definition of ISV is "independent software vendor", one who makes and
sells software products that run on one or more computer hardware or
operating system platforms.
Progress is defined as ISV selling/shipping software applications that are
specifically written for Microsoft operation systems.
However on PDF Page 43, slide states:
[quote]
All Is Not Fair
o We are under close scrutiny
- Any unethical acts WILL BE uncovered
o Besides - we're the good guys!
o Simple rule to live by: _Never Lie_
- Tell the truth, and nothing but the truth
- Be selective in which truths you emphasize
- Let the competition fill in the gaps
[/quote]
This is one thing I do not see done by trolls that have set up
camp in comp.os.linux.advocacy: Behaving ethically as though under close
scrutiny and TELLING THE TRUTH.
However, one must give them credit in their allegiance to Microsoft. They
have religiously followed Step 11 on PDF Page 45:
[quote]
11. /Mopping Up./ During the mopping-up phase, ensure that the enemy
technology is routed. Use the press, the Internet, etc. to heighten the
impression that the enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, deceased.
Usually, this phase or even Phase 8, the Slog) overlaps pases 1-3 of the
next version of [Technology Name], which addresses all of the advantages
of the competitors' technology, while addressing [Technology Name]'s key
weaknesses. Repeat phases 1-10 as necessary (e.g., Windows NT 3.1 through
4.0; OLE 1.0 through COM+; Windows 1.0 through Windows 3.1).
[/quote]
Interestingly enough, Step 5 is called, "Jihad".
However, I don't see Step 12 this time around:
[quote]
12. /Victory./ The developers, marketers, and managers of the competing
technology give up the sinking ship, and interview for positions at
Microsoft.
[/quote]
Rather, I see greater recent emphasis on Linux, more jobs are being
advertised requiring Linux background.
It is understandable that in salesmanship, that one would advertise their
product highlights, sell key points to convince users to select one
product over another, give samples, etc. This is "true" evangelism.
However, in question it is the ethics employed to ensure market
domination. We have already seen the court cases, implicating Microsoft
for unethical deeds.
Trolls in this newsgroup have continued the mantra that
o Microsoft is not a monopoly contrary to the court cases,
o Linux is buggy although it runs on high end mainframes and mission
critical environments,
o Linux applications are amateurish but Microsoft applications are
professional (despite applications like Open Office, K3B and others are
well written and much of the Internet runs from Linux servers),
o Microsoft desktop is polished although Linux Gnome and KDE offered
multiple desktops 10 years ago and Beryl 3D desktop runs on modest
hardware (try that with Vista),
o Microsoft naturally supports hardware whereas Linux still has problems,
although on my Dell laptop, I needed to install the specific Dell chipset
drivers before I had a decent screen, yet Linux detected all my hardware
without installing additional separate drivers,
o and ad nauseum.
It is time for linvocates and Open Source supports to complete the "mop
up" operations. :-)
--
HPT
|
|
