Another Microsoft Halloween

EVERY YEAR ABOUT THIS TIME Microsoft circulates strategy papers internally that are known collectively throughout the industry as the "Halloween documents."

Invariably, these documents are leaked to those targeted for the Vole's special "competition" and "innovation" in the marketplace. This year is no exception: the papers just tipped up, having been slipped into paws at the Open Source Initiative.

For some time, Microsoft has been scared stiff by Open Source, its success in slowing Redmond's march into data centers, and its growing momentum in the war for customers' mindshare and systems.

This year's Halloween documents summarise the results of user surveys assessing the effectiveness of Microsoft's anti-Linux messages. They make for depressing reading... if one happens to be a Vole executive.

To quote the OSI's introduction:

"The document... was presented at a Microsoft internal Linux Strategic Review held at the Microsoft offices in Berlin during Sept. 2002. [The OSI] received it on 5 November 2002."

Since the OSI's analysis is free for redistribution under the Open Software License, we are reprinting Eric S. Raymond's cheerful summary below (lightly edited for format only).

This year's unintended Halloween gift from Microsoft to the Open Source Software community can be found here.µ

What We Can Learn
Here's a summary of the tactical advice for open-source advocates that I think we can glean from this memo:

The messages and tactics the open-source community has developed over the last five years are working well.

Our memes about security, TCO, and competitive impact have achieved deep penetration in Microsoft's survey population. Abstract arguments about intellectual property rights, on the other hand, have served Microsoft just as poorly as they have served us.

Microsoft's FUD attacks on open source have not only failed, they have backfired strongly enough to show up in Microsoft's own market research as a problem.

This means we don't need to put a lot of energy into anti-FUD defending the open-source way of doing things. Indications are we've won that battle -- effort should now go elsewhere.

We need to keep Microsoft's feet to the fire on the TCO issue.

Its figures indicate that we're winning that battle (no surprise, especially not after the XP licensing changes). If the memo recommendations are followed, Microsoft will attempt to reverse this with all the money and marketing clout it can muster. One effective counter would be to point out the time and money overhead of keeping track of all your Microsoft licenses -- forever -- lest Microsoft send its jackbooted BSA thugs to shake you down.

Familiarity with open source makes respondents less vulnerable to Microsoft's 'shared source' scam.

The higher respondents scored on familiarity with open source, the less likely they were to judge that shared source offers the same benefits. We need to keep hammering on the difference between source that you can see only after signing a Microsoft NDA or non-competition agreement and source that anyone can examine, modify, and redistribute. Emphasizing the poison-pill problem is indicated.

Internationally, a distaste for being dependent on U.S. technology companies in general (and Microsoft in particular) is exploitable.

Microsoft perceives serious problems with this, as well it should.

High approval has not yet translated into wide deployments. More managers like Linux in theory than routinely use it in practice. This suggests that many are either waiting to see results from large path-breaker deployments by others or are hampered by organizational inertia.

The risk that Microsoft will go on a patent-lawsuit rampage, designed more to scare potential open-source users than to actually shut down developers, is substantial.

The language about "concrete actions" in relation to IPR has the same ominous feel that the talk of "de-commoditizing protocols" did in Halloween I and II.

The term 'free software' isn't mentioned once, not even as an exploitable weakness.

This contrasts strongly with the original Halloween Memoranda. I'm not sure what this means, but one strong possibility is that the term has simply fallen out of use both at Microsoft and in their survey population.

The overall tone of the memorandum is very defensive. Not quite panicky, but the researchers are not able to name any argument with the open-source community that their own figures show them to be winning.

In fact, its figures indicate that we are winning. It looks like all we have to do is stay the course.

Permission to reproduce is given under the terms of the Open Software License