“Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux…”

–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO (September 2008)

ontrary to figures that account only for shipped volume and revenue (IDC), the installed base of GNU/Linux servers is very high. This is not to be confused with “market share”, whose definition gets changed so as to serve the vanity of companies which directly or indirectly fund such market surveys. There is a lot of selective research and cherry-picking of methodologies.

GNU/Linux is very commonplace on servers. Virtualisation requires those servers to communicate between and within one another, either through open standards or ‘interoperability’, which is typically a two-way bridge. Microsoft is fiddling with companies like XenSource (now Citrix) and VMware (now run by former Softies) to interfere.

In order to understand how Linux is doing against Windows on the server, a market survey would be required which is global. It is harder and more expensive to conduct a survey based on actual deployments (global in particular), as opposed to assembling and aggregating numbers of shipments from market leaders.

One indicator of the success of Linux on the server is internal intelligence conducted and/or used by Microsoft. The company calls this — albeit just internally — “Linux heat map” (I have a copy here, a court exhibit from Comes vs Microsoft). Publicly, realisation of the Linux threat to Microsoft can be arrived at by interpreting the company’s rhetoric and actions, such as threats of litigation, secret deals with Fortune 500 companies that pay Microsoft for their use of GNU/Linux (this is scarcely reported in the press and the companies refuse to identify themselves), and also disinformation initiatives such as “Get the Facts” and “Linux Personas” (defunct just days after debut).

Internal documents which were revealed in the Comes vs Microsoft case not only reveal figures about market share in several areas. They also show the company’s executives running frantic about what they called “Linux infestation”. They said they were not on a path to win against Linux, so they tried to manipulate Dell into dropping or neglecting Linux (on servers) and they also decided to commission studies which show Linux to be more expensive. Failing the first time, Microsoft argued, they can simply try again. This methodology fits well with tactics that are presented in internal Microsoft talks about “Effective Evangelism”. One of the tactics is to manufacture evidence that you need and then reference it. Analysts can be compensated in many ways that escape the public eye, as detailed in the company’s presentations (all endorsed by Bill Gates by the way).

In one of the documents disclosed in Comes vs Microsoft, Microsoft was seen explicitly asking IDC to remove signs of its sponsorship of a study. This study accidentally showed Linux (server) to be superior. Microsoft had similar studies conducted with market research groups like Yankee and Gartner.

It is worth emphasising that what challenges Microsoft is not just the market share of Linux. It’s more complicated than that. As netbooks (sub-notebooks) have demonstrated, tough competition from Linux not necessarily leads to erosion of Windows’ market share; instead, it rapidly leads to erosion of margins. Sources suggest that Windows has become virtually free (gratis) for some form factors, whereas in the case of servers, Microsoft has promotional means for advancing Windows not only through advertising campaigns. I have heard personally from Web hosts who were offered Windows for free so that they migrate away from Linux. In one case, the source was offered subsidies of hardware as well.

All in all, this comes to show that it’s a multi-faceted issue which can be addressed and treated by considering questions like:

1. How has Linux affected Microsoft’s/Windows market share?

2. How is market share defined?

3. How has Linux affected Windows margins?

4. What is the difference between perceptual Linux quality/market share compared to reality? There is room for distortion here and it is actively being exploited, as shown by authentic court evidence.

5. How failure-proof is Linux? How many companies are involved in developing and supporting it? Symbian and Palm OS, for example, have a single breaking point.

With Linux, you own your computer and share code.

With Windows, you share your computer but can’t own code.

computer needs to be as simple to use as an appliance. Whenever you switch it on, it enters a mode of full operation.

When you install software on it, everything should be set up completely, without a hitch.

Failing to achieve a simple installation, it’s clear that something is amiss.

PCs should be sold separately from software. If the software is trivial to install, then it can be offered as an option alongside hardware. It only takes minutes to install from a CD-ROM.

A good set of software can also include customised images and plenty of software of interest, such as an office suite.

Why can’t PCs be sold without an operating system? Because, as Microsoft wishfully argues, customers would struggle to install the operating system.

So make it easier.

Windows will continue to be a hard-to-install mess as long as it provides this argument that Joe Sixpack can’t have it installed.

In other words, as long as Windows is bad, it’s more likely to be bundled, without the offering of choice.

Apple and its separate universe of ‘xenophobic’ hardware and software is another matter altogether.

Should houses also be built with furniture bolted in? Or restaurant serve just one meal because choice is bad and cooking is too complicated?

Being a norm does not make anything right or acceptable.

Here is an old video of Microsoft’s CEO.

And here is a new ad.

No, I don’t recommend Macs at all. GNU/Linux is much better and it respects the users’ rights and freedoms.

Bill Gates arrested in his younger days (photo in public domain)

recently got engaged in a conversation where the roots of my disdain for Microsoft were reminisced.

Specifically, I was asked about my “original reason for deciding that Microsoft is not a force for good.”

A friend inquired: “Have you written an article describing it? All I remember was that you said that you were a Microsoft user for quite a while and you were ignorant of how that company does business. Surely, there must have been something which became your tipping point.”

Well, I was acutely aware of the company’s issues in the US courts, but was never a big ‘hater’ (that’s a daemonising label to be avoided) as a young teenager. GNU/Linux, which I was encouraged to learn at college, showed me not only that there was choice; it was better, and yet it suffered from Microsoft’s standards snub (mainly file formats). This was probably the tipping point.

My friend explained his own reasoning: “Once my view of Microsoft changed, choice became the whole point for me. I already knew about Unix from my college years, so I knew that it is technically possible to do better than Windows. When I had that network administrator job, I didn’t have a home computer. Once I could afford to buy one, I made sure that it didn’t run Windows. I chose an Atari ST, which worked well enough for me. It even had a multi-tasking Unix-like system available called MiNT. When that company went kaput and my computer didn’t work anymore, I bought a PC. The first thing I did was to install Slackware on it. I considered it a shame that this system came with Windows, which I never used.

“My father bought an original IBM PC with DOS. Some of my first programming experiences were with Microsoft BASIC. At that point, I was inclined to have a positive view of the company. That started to change as I began to see the limitations of DOS and I saw the years go by without any significant improvements to it. Eventually, I landed a job as a network administrator and all of the clients that I had to support were running DOS and Windows 3.x. That was something of a nightmare as constant client crashes were the norm. I came to the conclusion that Windows was not ready to be released at this point and, of course, then I was inclined to have a negative view of the company responsible for this. Windows ’95, the anti-trust trials and any other subsequent products or events have only reinforced my negative view that they are a ruthless company that only cares to maintain or increase its dominance.

“When the PC with Windows became dominant at the expense of IBM, Microsoft also took over one of IBM’s marketing tactics – FUD. Of course, it’s easy to see that the smears are self-serving and, in many cases, the substance behind the smear can be traced back to Microsoft itself (i.e. incompatible file formats or network protocols? Microsoft makes sure they are not compatible by refusing to publish specifications.)”

Ironically, as I said many times before, it’s the smears from Microsoft that encouraged me to do more to study — and discredit where appropriate — the company.

By exploring Microsoft’s misbehaviour one ascends to find corruption at even high levels. Once the knowledge is gained, why not share it with more people?

Just for your information. I mentioned this before.

Also be aware that Windows Vista spies on the users and collects forensic evidence all the time. When you install Windows, you lose control of your personal computer.

Joe Wilcox, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Several days ago, I left a comment in his inherited Web site just to say that Microsoft hides some of its Vista weakness by secretly patching vulnerabilities. I even provided two links from very reliable source to support this. One of these sources was the Microsoft Blog at ZDNet. With further confirmations that this is true, I see no reason whatsoever why my comment should be removed. This leads to the suspicion that Microsoft Watch has turned from a professional Web site run by Mary Jo Foley into a Microsoft shilling dumpster. Several months ago, the site dropped its Windows server and had it replaced by Red Hat Linux. This is hypocritical, is it not?

It has become obvious (by admission) that many Microsoft employees visit the Web site and even comment without disclosure. I refuse to participate as much as I used to knowing that a site which once served me well has decided to lift and iron first and decide what is valid information and what is an inconvenient truth.