On the Wrong Side of History

Microsoft is attacking Linux and Open Source - But I Think They Protest Too Much

Remember that rhyme you said as a kid: ``I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say about me sticks to you''? At Red Hat we've been reminded of that lately, as each week seems to bring a new round of Linux and open-source bashing from Microsoft. First, Doug Miller says of Linux: ``there's very little value in free.'' Then Steve Ballmer says that Linux is the biggest threat facing Microsoft (at least he got that part right). Now James Allchin says that open source is the ``intellectual property destroyer... the worst thing to happen to the software industry'' and the thing that ``kills innovation.''

There's so much FUD here, it's hard to know where to start. I think Microsoft's terror of open source, and their attacks on it fall into three general areas, so here's how we at Red Hat respond to Microsoft's charges:

• ``Linux is an immature product.''
  This is obviously, demonstrably untrue. Linux has been under constant development by a worldwide network of software experts for eight years. It's now captured almost 30 percent of the server market, according to IDC, and continues strong growth. Can an immature product be the OS of choice for 30 percent of the demanding, savvy server market? Linux is a strong, reliable, flexible and solid operating environment that gets better every day. Its security is rated above that of Windows. And the phrase ``blue screen of death'' does not refer to Linux systems, but rather to the immature Windows products.
• ``Linux threatens Microsoft's core business.''
  That's the gist of what Steve Ballmer said and it's a perceptive comment. Linux and open source do threaten Microsoft at the server operating system level. But even more dangerous, the open source model threatens the core business strategy of Microsoft - domination, monopoly, total control and restricted consumer choices. History has shown that hegemonists and those who restrict freedom ultimately fail. Microsoft is on the wrong side of history.
• ``Open source destroys intellectual property... kills innovation.''
  This is where I say ``I'm rubber, you're glue?'' It's a bizarre accusation. Open source is creating tremendous intellectual property in software that is copyrighted through the GPL (general public license) every day; the real issue is, who owns it? With open source, the users own it, improve it and share it to everyone's benefit. It's led to the software that runs most of the internet and powers a third of all server systems already. With Microsoft's approach, Microsoft owns the intellectual property. As for killing innovation, I'd argue that a worldwide monopoly, enforced by business practices that a federal judge has found to be predatory and anti-competitive probably has more to do with killing innovation than anything the open source movement could ever do.

When you're in a business that's under attack by Microsoft you have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's nice to know that Linux and open source have grown so much, and moved so firmly into the mainstream of computing that Mighty Microsoft is scared. But on the other hand, it's troubling to be in a great intellectual debate - perhaps the most fundamental in the history of computing - and have to face such specious and unfounded arguments and accusations. Still, the debate is now in full swing and if history is our guide, I know which movement is on the right side. Freedom, access and individual rights always prevail in the long run.

LINUX is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. RED HAT is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc. All other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.