A Microsoft-Red Hat warming trend?

TalkBack 29 of 41:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

WMAD: all paranoia, all the time...

Microsoft is suffering reverses as of late. They're having to create bargain basement editions to attract customers in the third world. They're having to launch initiatives in the educational market to partner with schools to the tune of 250 million per country. They're having to offer steep discounts to maintain cities on Microsoft software and/or donate zero-cost consulting services. They need to stem that flow before profits turn down and eventually become red ink and investors flee.

So, what does Microsoft do? How do they halt the inevitable flow of cash outbound? Well, there are several tactics that Microsoft has in the past employed. Maybe one of them will serve? I don't see an old leopard like Ballmer changing his spots in for a new stripey coat, so, unless Szulik, by word and action denies Microsoft proposed these to him, and does so very soon; my bet is their conversation consisted of one, or more, of the following:

1) An agreement for Redhat to stay out of one or more markets, ala Netscape, in agreement for Microsoft ceding a market. Nevermind that this action is illegal; Microsoft is nearing the end of their current punishment and will happily try again. With 65+ billion in the bank, what's another lawsuit more or less?

2) An agreement for Microsoft to produce some pittance of software. "You don't have anything like ______. We can do that for you." The price of course is the introduction of a dependency into the Redhat ES lifeblood, which can then be used as a hook to guarantee future behaviour. "Don't do that or we'll stop making ________ for you."

3) A crosslicensing of technology agreement. Redhat does hold a few patents. Microsoft might want to license them without paying the burden the GPL imposes. For example, Redhat has basically made a kernel http server into a GPL only item. If Microsogft wanted that; they'd have to GPL their connecting code to use Redhat's implementation or cut a license. See #2 for why a license from Microsoft is dangerous.

4) A fishing expedition: what are Redhat's future plans? With what can Microsoft pre-empt them? Can Microsoft obtain a dummy patent to prevent Redhat from introducing new code into a project Redhat funds? Too many leaks and Redhat sinks like a stone.

5) Microsoft could give the appearance of impropriety on the part of Linux vendors and leaders by meeting with them under a strict non-disclosure. Unlike Borland/Inprise/Borland, Microsoft cannot hire away the community, but if they can create FUD by the appearance that maybe our leaders are buddy-buddy with the beast, then maybe we'll be distracted and refuse to follow those leaders. Such would lead to development disarray, enough perhaps for Microsoft to gain an edge in development.

6) A "plea" to drop the SCO case. Microsoft surreptitiously backed SCO and of all the cases pending; only one was not brought by Microsoft's little tool in Utah. Could there be something Microsoft is afraid Redhat might uncover? Something that might possibly upset the judge at the antitrust release hearing next year causing her to continue sanctions? Microsoft needs their sanctions released or they won't have the ability to push Longhorn into the marketplace the way they pushed the last complete bet-the-farm.

Well, that's about all I can deviously imagine. I'm sure you are all much more creative than I am and will trump me with far more paranoid delusions. Remember: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're =not= out to get you. And just because they =have= publically announced, on many occasions, that they =are= out to get you; doesn't mean you cannot still win.

Winning, of course, is best defined in this case as having fun and building the software that scratches your itch in concert with your own dermatologically abraded peers. Now, please have a chuckle, because any of the above have about as much chance of being correct as I have of winning the lotttery.


PS - Maybe that old Gandhi saw, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", needs an extra part: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then ==they attempt to negotiate in bad faith with you==, then you win." (C'mon, it's funny. Laugh!)

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 05/10/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now