 |
 |
 |
| |
MemberShip
 Welcome Anonymous
 Become a member:
 
Membership unlocks everything we offer!
 Create account
 Login:
[ Password Lost? ]
 Membership:
People Online:
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|  |
|
|
|
| |
Welcome to virtuallinux.org. You are currently reading the article "Did Bill Gates Invent Linux and Has He Erased the Evidence?". All articles on virtuallinux.org pertain to the ongoing assult on the worlds greatest Operating system. Continue on reading about "Did Bill Gates Invent Linux and Has He Erased the Evidence?"
Did Bill Gates Invent Linux and Has He Erased the Evidence?
Posted on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 08:55:56 EDT by linuxwiz |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
Someone has started rearranging content on the Internet to suit their
own purposes and the culprit might be a convicted monopolist. This
article examines some compelling evidence and asks Congress to
investigate.
On October 1, 2004, at an appearance at the Computer History Museum in
northern California, someone asked Bill Gates about a possible threat
from Linux and Gates replied: "Microsoft has had competitors in the
past. It's a good thing we have museums to document this stuff."
But during the frantic days of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Mr. Gate's employees at
Microsoft corporation put together an argument for the court that made
a tiny group of companies look like a threat - even a competitor.
Here's a list of exhibits demonstrating the enormous competitive threat
of Linux to Microsoft:
194 Advertisement for Caldera OpenLinux
The defense presented these exhibits at trial to explain the
imminent threat of the Linux operating system to Microsoft. In fact,
under cross examination, one prominent witness who had calculated the
economic consequences of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior found
himself discredited because he was unaware of the Linux competitive
threat demonstrated by exhibit 1901 under cross examination by
Microsoft's attorneys.
Dr. Warren-Boulton discussed extensively the applications barrier to
entry into the OS market. This barrier, which Dr. Warren-Boulton
claimed would make it difficult for an entering firm to compete in that
market, appears
to have already been overcome by commercially available versions of
Linux, such as Red Hat. The potential viability of Red Hat, which
include not only a Windows-like operating system, but also copies of
WordPerfect 7, Netscape, CAD, and various other popular computing
programs as shown by plaintiff's exhibits 1901 A and B, as a
competitor to Microsoft Windows had not been considered by Dr.
Warren-Boulton when he performed his analysis of Microsoft's market
position, as Dr. Warren-Boulton admitted to being unaware of the
various features included as standard with Red Hat.
Of course Dr. Warren-Boulton had not calculated the competitive
threat because Microsoft simply invented it. At the time of the trial,
estimated global users of Linux numbered approximately two million
compared to 400 million Microsoft desktops. Three years before the
trial in 1995, Linus Torvalds estimated Linux users at 30,000.
In 1999, D.H. Martin & Associates evaluated Linux and said it
was a good platform for file and print services but could not compete
with UNIX. If UNIX didn't compete with Microsoft in terms of
Microsoft's monopoly standing, people might question the reasoning that
Linux posed any threat whatsoever. At the time of the testimony, Linux
didn't even have a supported graphical web browser or an Office
productivity suite.
To further demonstrate the ridiculousness of Microsoft's argument,
Linux's top distribution didn't even have a retail agreement with a
single recognizable reseller. You could buy Linux over the Internet and
after Microsoft mentioned Linux in testimony a few random retail stores
stocked a few retail boxes.
But anyone could easily see that the $39.95 retail version of Red
Hat couldn't compete with Windows. If you needed technical support, you
could email Red Hat. You could look on their mailing list archives or
read the book they provided in their box. But Red Hat and the other
tiny Linux companies had no claim to the status of a commercial
operating system at the time.
Additionally, the DoJ didn't challenge the claims of Microsoft that
Linux competed with them. Six years later, Linux still doesn't compete
with Microsoft on the desktop as we're so frequently reminded. Gates
even believed that Linux would wind up in the museum so a record of
Linux could exist.
Let us not forget that the US v Microsoft action centered around
harm Microsoft did to the market for Internet Browsers by using its
power to exclude competing products, primarily Netscape. Linux didn't
even have a supported browser. So, how did Linux's existence prove that
Microsoft was not really a monopoly? Microsoft invented Linux as a
competitive threat to counter the DoJ's argument that:
Microsoft possesses (and for several years has possessed) monopoly
power in the market for personal computer operating systems.
Microsoft’s “Windows” operating systems are used on over 80% of
Intel-based PCs, the dominant type of PC in the United States. More
than 90% of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with a version of Windows
pre-installed. PC manufacturers (often referred to as Original
Equipment Manufacturers, or “OEMs”) have no commercially reasonable
alternative to Microsoft operating systems for the PCs that they
distribute.
The Evidence Disappears
Much of the evidence of Microsoft's arguments has disappeared from
the Internet. Links which I have collected in my research lead to
either "HTTP 404 Not Found" pages or interesting redirects to pages
that alter the original reports. We'll show you examples of the code
used to do that so you can judge for yourself if you believe a
conspiracy might exist. First let's look at some examples.
On October 19, 1999, a group of individuals rebutted a Microsoft
document called The Five Linux Myths. They published their paper as did
many. Unfortunately, Microsoft's document no longer resides on the
Internet.
If you visit Hardvard's Cyber Law Center and look at the
documentation of the US v Microsoft trial make your way to the links to
the trial exhibits. You can find the links by clicking here.
Once you arrive at this page attempt to find any of the Linux exhibits
and you will discover you've reached a page that states:
We’re sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page that matches your
entry. It is possible you typed the address incorrectly, or the page
may no longer exist. You may wish to try another entry or choose from
the links below, which we hope will help you find what you’re looking
for.
If I were at Microsoft, I wouldn't want a record of those exhibits
to exist in the event anyone ever questioned Microsoft's testimony or
used their trial transcripts in the event of another challenge. I would
cleanse the world of any record of that trial. I wouldn't want anyone
to know anything about that trial including things such as the
prosecutors discovering I had doctored video tapes - not once but twice.
But what about the Press
Something about altering history disturbs scholars. We spend so much
of our taxpayer dollars to preserve records of the past. Now ask
yourself, do you want records of the Internet and the World Wide Web to
vanish? Well, they have.
Let's start to look at a few examples. As you do your own searches,
you will discover not only have articles disappeared, but archives have
been altered and blocked using robots.txt files. Coincidently, many of
those articles which have disappeared and changed existed in the
Washington Post archives. Bill's wife, Melinda, and his good friend
Warren Buffet sit on the Board of the Washington Post.
Phony Grass Roots Support
Linux advocates believe Microsoft employees and contractors disrupt
forums and discussion groups. They believe that Microsoft advocates use
fictitious names to post unfavorable comments about Linux. They refer
to people who may do that as "astroturfers".
An archive site called Silly Dog 701 has documented questionable issues about Microsoft. In one area of their site they write:
Microsoft's fierce competitive nature has alienated
everybody in the industry to the point where voluntary supporters are
virtually nonexistent. For quite some time Microsoft has resorted to
buying public endorsements and there have been documented incidents of
Microsoft employees posing as normal software users in public settings
without revealing their true identities. And these are just the
incidents that the public has found out about - who knows how many
cases have never been exposed for the false endorsements that they
actually are? So when you see that rare instance of Microsoft support
you need to seriously question whether it is genuine.
Microsoft's recent "astroturf" campaign
fortunately blew up in its face. The astroturf campaign was Microsoft's
attempt to create a grassroots movement in its legal battle against the
DOJ by paying people to show public support. It was referred to as
astroturf rather than grassroots because the support was completely
fake.
In the above, a link exists to a Los Angeles Times Story that no
longer exists on the web site. Click it and you will get a message that
says: "Error - Sorry, the page you requested is not available."
Fortunately, we found the article and discovered an embarrassing report. Click here
and you will see something very close to the original. In the event
this link also disappears the article is entitled, Microsoft Plans
Stealth Blitz to Mend Its Image, By GREG MILLER and LESLIE HELM, Times
Staff Writers.
Friday, April 10, 1998, Stung by the public relations fallout from
antitrust investigations of its business practices, Microsoft Corp. has
secretly been planning a massive media campaign designed to influence
state investigators by creating the appearance of a groundswell of
public support for the company.
The elaborate plan, outlined in confidential documents obtained by The
Times, hinges on a number of unusual—and some say unethical—tactics,
including the planting of articles, letters to the editor and opinion
pieces to be commissioned by Microsoft's top media handlers but
presented by local firms as spontaneous testimonials.
My Favorite - The case of the redirected news articles
One of the links I found while doing research into the US v
Microsoft case lead me to an article which supposedly held information
about the original verdict. The article was entitled: Judge Issues Verdict and went on to state:
Saying that Microsoft put "an oppressive thumb on the scale of
competitive fortune," Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled Monday that
Microsoft broke antitrust laws when it acted to protect its monopoly in
the Windows operating system.
Instead the article that responds to the link is entitled:
Microsoft Ruling Overturned and states:
A federal appeals court reversed parts of a $521 million patent ruling
against Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday, giving the world's largest
software maker another chance to prove that its Web browser didn't
illegally copy a key piece of technology.
I have seen this happen on other news sites and have demonstrated it
to members of the press. I believe people have rearranged web archives
on a widespread basis. If so, it seems to serve the purpose of purging
history.
The manner in which some of these articles disappear involve adding
meta data to the file. In the case of the Washington Post article,
someone doctored the original document by adding this code:
META http-equiv= **REFRESH** CONTENT="0;URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/microsofttrial/index.html"
I altered the tags because even in this document, the REFRESH directive forces the web page to change. The original document at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/micro.htm changes to a document at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/microsofttrial/index.html .
I have also had my own investigative articles disappear. For
example, I wrote an article entitled, Did Microsoft Try to Kill UNIX.
It has also disappeared from the Internet and my personal backups. It
once existed at this web site. Evidence of the article exists here.
But if you click on the link, the article is long gone. One of the
major references in that article involved Unisys Corp. winning a
five-year, $188 million contract to supply workstations to more than
40,000 Coast Guard personnel in 1995 using Microsoft Corp.'s Windows
NT.
To win the contract, a procurement arbitrator declared NT an Open
System. Dr. Heinz Lycklama represented the Microsoft/Unysis consortium.
The major protest issue analyzed, and on which Lycklama provided an
expert opinion was that of POSIX compliance. Dr. Lycklama was admitted
as an expert in operating systems in this case.
That case allowed Microsoft to sell NT in favor of POSIX compliant
UNIX to the US Government. The article explaining the case and offering
substantial information why NT did not meet the acquisition regulations
has disappeared. In 1999, you could find the article in the archives of
the Open Group.
Microsoft's Search Technology
In September 2004, I began to notice a change in certain Google
search results. As I managed a number of news sites, I discovered MSN's
search bot repeatedly hitting URL's with little to no value. That
resulted in moving non-sense higher in the results of Google searches
while moving more relevant materials further out of the Google's data
base.
In a recent interview in InfoWorld, Steve Ballmer mentioned that
Microsoft's search technology had started to provide a better
experience than Google over the past year. I immediately began to
wonder if Microsoft had actually used their search technology to change
the relevance of any data they pleased. The more I watch web
statistics, the more I wonder if someone should investigate Microsoft's
procedures in the search arena. Only by monitoring Microsoft's
practices can we know.
Some not so final thoughts
Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries made an observation that a person’s sense of
morality lessens as his or her power increases. He's quoted as saying,
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Is that a
true statement for all people or does it tend to generalize? I don't
really know the answer. It somehow feels right.
I have a lack of trust in our current Administration's ability to
regulate Microsoft. In fact, I'm concerned that a lack of motivation
and/or interest exists to protect us from Microsoft's monopolistic
grip. I don't know from where the resources would come to investigate
them in the civil sector. Microsoft just doesn't appear as a priority
in the administration's agenda.
I believe that the US has slipped technologically in the last five
years as investment in start-ups has slowed and our technologist have
migrated to other professions. I lay the blame on our government's
inability to show the fortitude to stop monopolies from thwarting
innovation. Hopefully this article will provide some incentive for
someone to take a look at how one company could change the internal
landscape of the Internet and distort history.
Source
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| "Did Bill Gates Invent Linux and Has He Erased the Evidence?" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
