An Anti-Linux Strategy for Microsoft
July 23rd, 2005 • Linux
Have Ballmer give a speech in Asia, or any place that is switching hogwild for Linux, and warn them that Linux has legal issues that can bite them, and have your salesmen mention that in their sales pitch. Use the phony baloney lawsuit as evidence. Next announce indemnification for your own products and make a pleasant contrast. Have the lawyers delay and delay and delay any litigation outcome to maximize PR benefits. Cross your fingers behind your back and say Microsoft is cheaper to run than Linux. Play with numbers until it can be “proven” in your paid-for “studies”. A mainframe computer might help out there.
This must be the perfect strategy to destroy Linux.
Honestly, I don’t know how people think that Linux can be destroyed. Corporates might be able to stop Linux from growing in the desktop market, or cut its (tiny) share from mobile devices, but trust me, Linux is here to stay.
There are many things that can change Linux’s fate, especially without proper corporate backing. Think Apple’s switch to Intel, Intel’s “plans” to cut off Linux of the media, DRM, the RIAA, the MPAA, extraterrestrials, and god-knows-what-else. Everyone seems to try their best they can to stop Linux from growing, and for some reason, they’re failing.
Intel thinks that if they start on the hardware level they’ll be able to stop Linux from playing legitimate content, or force Linux vendors to buy licenses for “special” software that can play such protected content. The fact is, Linux is made by a huge list of extremely talented developers who aren’t going to let this go, and I’m pretty sure that if Intel does utilize a hardware-level media protection layer, developers are still going to deconstruct, dissect and disassemble it, find a work around, write a kernel module and distribute it anyway. Nobody likes having his rights taken off, and that’s precisely what Intel’s trying to do.
A free operating system is particularly difficult to stop, since it’s commoditizing an essential part of computers, a part that we usually pay for; Linux is making that available to everyone for close-to-nothing cost. The only problem is that Linux isn’t represented by a single entity, and without proper commercial backing Linux is going to have a hard time dealing with licensing, IP, and legal trouble.
Essentially, it’s all about the money. Why would Apple, Intel or Microsoft want to hurt Linux unless it’s going to get them more money? Isn’t it a business strategy? If any of these companies finds a way to make Linux work for them rather than against, don’t you think they’d start evangelizing Linux as an “alternative” solution? I bet they would.
It’s still possible to stop Linux, only it’s not very easy. As long as its generating revenues for a few companies, you’re still going to see it around.