Why Microsoft Suddenly Wanted to Be More Interoperable

Guess why Microsoft suddenly decided it wanted to be more interoperable? It’s so it can get customers to quit using Linux and switch to Windows & .NET.

Exhibit 7068 [PDF] in the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation exhibits list tells us what happened with Intel. It is a 4-page email thread with Bill Gates and others at Microsoft all about trying to get Intel to switch from Linux/Unix to Windows for their development environment. Gates calls it a jihad. What stood in the way, according to the email report on what Intel was telling them: “Linux apparently meets over 90% of their current EDA needs.” Intel said Linux interoperability was better, they could port code more easily, EDA ISVs “got burnt with poor experiences with Windows NT” and so were “wary of taking steps in this direction”.

Remember when Microsoft told us it was interested in greater interoperability with Linux because their customers were demanding it? That part is true, as I’ll show you. But the purpose of developing greater interoperability at the request of Intel, according to this exhibit, was so that Microsoft could get Intel to switch its development environment from Linux to Windows. Intel’s Paul Otellini had reportedly asked his people to figure out how to do that. But in 1999, Microsoft and Intel had cooperatively done a comparison test project, testing Windows and Linux against each other, and Linux performed better. Way better. And so after identifying 100 or so Microsoft work items, Intel decided to go with Linux. The email thread is about whether Intel could now switch back.

1999. Think about what that means in the SCO v. IBM context, where SCO alleges that it wasn’t until IBM got involved in Linux — years after 1999 — that Linux suddenly worked well in the enterprise. Seems they are, at best, mistaken.

The email thread begins with a report on a telephone conference with some Intel and Windows folks, to see what could be done to get Intel off of Linux and back on Windows. Continue reading.

Related Posts

Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe A. Rationale for enforcement of the GPL - At present, the enforcement of the GPL license conditions is driven by single developers and organizations s...
The Anatomy of a Modern GPL Violation I've been thinking the last few weeks about the evolution of the GPL violation. After ten years of being involved with GPL enforcement, it seems like ...
Open Source Security Study: Fortify Got it Wrong Several bloggers have already reported on the Open Source Security Study released by Fortify's Security Research Group (and Larry Suto), but we are ye...
The Toyota recall and the case for open, auditable source code Public Safety is not a matter of Private Concern In a recent article, Slate's Farhad Manjoo attempts to play down fears of faulty software in car bra...
Who Controls Identity on the Web? The race to own your virtual identity is on. In announcements made just days apart at the end of April, Facebook and the Mozilla Foundation launched p...
REAL Net Neutrality Last fall, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules for “Net Neutrality” — a set of regulations intended to help innovation and free speec...

We Recommend These Vendors and Free Offers

Launch an SSD VPS in Europe, USA, Asia & Australia on Vultr's KVM-based Cloud platform starting at $5:00/month (15 GB SSD, 768 MB of RAM).

Deploy an SSD Cloud server in 55 seconds on DigitalOcean. Built for developers and starting at $5:00/month (20 GB SSD, 512 MB of RAM).

Want to become an expert ethical hacker and penetration tester? Request your free video training course of Online Penetration Testing and Ethical Hacking

Whether you're new to Linux or are a Linux guru, you can learn a lot more about the Linux kernel by requesting your free ebook of Linux Kernel In A Nutshell.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*