PotatoHead's Journal: About Microsoft's new 'Taylor Made' Linux strategist

This guy is scary. Very smooth. I am not sure what I plan to do with this yet, but the amount of spin present in his recent enterpriselinux interview is sickening.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci946179,00.html

We need to trash every last thing this guy says for as long as he tries to say it. Here is my beginning effort, please add/change vent whatever:

"Some research indicates that Linux is winning against Microsoft in some markets. Its acceleration and adoption is undeniable. What worries you about Linux?

I don't say what worries me about Linux. I think about the market share. "

--So, he does not give Linux any credit at all. He wants to know what people want to buy, without revealing anything positive about Linux growth. Microsoft can do better, but Linux is not a factor in that? If that is really the case, why not just say that, instead of pretending the numbers don't indicate anything?

"It's no different than any other competitive discussion. It's the same way we think about Sun, Oracle, IBM, AOL..."

--He says, Linux is just like all the other UNIXES, but with a different business model. This is clever in that it marginalizes all of the good things the Open Source community has to offer, like the business model, while strongly linking UNIX to Linux. Microsoft wants, very badly, for people to think that UNIX is UNIX is Linux. This association benefits Microsoft in that UNIX has a reputation for high costs.

" Are you hearing more business-related or technology-related questions about Linux?

Taylor: Most of the questions are about interoperability and things like that. People might say Linux is a better product -- and that's not me speaking -- in terms of innovative solutions, new ways to do things, new ways to implement them." --He starts this one out by not answering the question. That must mean they are clearly hearing more about Linux. The rest of this sets up his comparison of the attention Linux is getting to 'noise'. People say things (which people, ordinary people? People that just don't matter?) all the time. The implication here is clear: We know the truth and everybody else simply does not. Microsoft is the authority?

"We know we've got a great offering. More so on the business model, on the licensing." --Translation: We are making lots of money with our ability to lock in the customers and fuck 'em over hard. Look at the numbers! We are making money hand over fist! All things being equal, we must be doing things right, right? This one will sit well with the money guys because they really don't look at the finer issues that actually are beginning to matter to a lot of people; namely, where exactly is all that money going, and what are we really getting for it year after year?

"The loudest technical area is with Unix migrations." --Here we bring forth the concept of 'noise'. We are hearing a lot of noise about UNIX to Linux migrations. Now that is a very interesting way to put this. It implies that UNIX to Linux migrations are bad. And they are, if you are Microsoft, but to everyone else they are a good thing, particularly if you are tired of paying high prices for high-end UNIX you may not need.

"Part of it's a perception issue and people giving Linux the credit that perhaps Unix earned in many ways."

--So, the low cost of Linux, is a matter of perception? It is kind of hard to argue with few to Zero dollars running on inexpensive hardware isn't it? The next bit is worse. Remember when I said he was trying hard to equate Linux to UNIX? Here it is again, but with a nice little twist. The word 'perhaps' links nicely to the concept of perception mentioned just a bit earlier. The link being that any credit UNIX may have earned is in the eyes of the beholder, and by implication not the truth at all. Throwing all of this FUD in with Linux simply tries to reinforce the negative link between 'Expensive UNIX' and this new Linux upstart UNIX wannabe. All negative in very subtle ways.

"So some of the challenges on the x86 architecture, you're going to see [migrations to] Linux or us. We've been at this for quite some time optimizing our platform for those migrations. So, I would say that's probably where most of the technical conversations might come up."

--This is a touchy one. Microsoft planned to have UNIX go away. They thought cheaper hardware combined with their 'embrace and extend' lock-in tactics would win the battle slow and sure. Enter Linux! They have spent a long time waiting for the payback Linux is taking from them today. Yes, people are talking about that for sure. Again negative toward Linux in a very subtle way. The idea that Microsoft has been in the game for a long time, really tries to speak to the youth and thus, unstable and unproven, in his eyes, of Linux.

" If the general perception is that Linux is winning against Unix in the server market, why all the positioning against Linux? Some might presume that Microsoft is panicking, and sometimes perception becomes reality.
Taylor: I don't see it as positioning against Linux. Most of the migrations are against Unix, no question. There is also a little bit of penetration on single-purpose servers and appliances. Our focus is to make sure that we clear up the perceptions that exist."

--Our new friend, the Linux strategist is not positioning against Linux? What exactly is he being paid for then? This is a bold faced lie. Microsoft has admitted they are concerned about Linux. This guy is here to preach the word with a forked tongue!

--Note also the ongoing references to perception? Reality must be something different then? Nice attempt to frame the discussion in a way that marginalizes the entire OSS movement as noise and poor perception. Again the strong implication of both truth and authority on the part of Microsoft, who has quite plainly demonstrated neither of those.

"You do some research and come back to me and tell me there's a perception in the marketplace that Linux has a better TCO. No, it's not the case. Let's do some research and make sure people understand that. In many ways what we're doing with the 'Get the Facts' campaign is making sure that on these areas where there is a disparity between reality and perception, we're trying to put those two things a little closer together."

--Wow. Basically, any research anyone chooses to conduct is not 'real' research at all. It must be that poor perception again. Since Microsoft is the authority in these matters --riight!, we all need to get the facts straight from the same company making fucking us hard while making money hand over fist!

--Just in case you fail to understand, we are going to pay lots of people to tell you in as many ways as we can think of that we are right and the rest of the world is suffering from poor perception. Never mind the fact that we are paying for the studies, just know they are the truth. This from the same company who lied in court to hide their monopoly crimes.

" Aren't IT pros smart enough to do the research and get the answers to those questions themselves? Is it worth the resources Microsoft is putting into this?
Taylor: It's 100% worth the resources. They are smart enough, but they don't always have the capabilities to do it. For instance, as an IT professional and I'm thinking about a simple solution for a small department, I'm probably not going to go into a detailed analysis about two platforms and all the time it takes to run the specs and run the [performance tests] to then have the comparative analysis to then make a decision."

Here he says we can easily do our own comparisons, but that takes time and money. Why not just take a look at ours and see for yourself. This implies trust and honesty along with a common bond over money that is simply crazy considering all the aggressive changes in licensing and product features intended to extract more revenue from the customer on a more regular basis. Honesty from the same company who lied in court and cannot, even in this interview, admit that Linux is growing on its own merits and not Microsofts failings? Come on!

--One other small point to mention here. If you are a small enough enterprise that doing a comparison like this is tough, chances are you don't need the performance metrics. You need a solution that will do the job with the least hassle for the fewest dollars. This whole like of discussion very cleverly moves the discussion away from the initial costs and feature comparisons into other areas more easily littered with FUD. If you are a small fry, why not just trust the big boys, afterall we know what we are doing? (What about IBM?)

"I'm normally going to lean one way or another to deploy that solution, then make a decision based on what I think. If it works, stay the course. We have many customers that might be doing an internal TCO discussion. Others say they're going to take a look at what's out there from publicly accessible information to build their view."

Not sure where he plans to go with this, but I do see an interesting admission here. The public is clearly getting our message. Microsoft is going to work hard to make sure people get theirs. The words "stay the course" are interesting as well. If what you are using now is working, you are better off staying with it. Sure, this is a good message for the monopoly holder to take because they can only lose.

Interesting he admits customers are doing TCO evaluations, and that they are listening to other sources of information.

" Some of the research cited in 'Get the Facts' has been funded by Microsoft. Why use that research? Doesn't that taint your campaign?
Taylor: I've told every single analyst firm, IDC, Gartner, Meta, if you guys did this on your own, I would not fund it. I want this data. Customers want to see this information. The fact remains is that they can't always fund it themselves. That's why [Microsoft] does it."

Interesting point of view; namely, the complexity of the issue. Now I am not sure it is that complex in a large number of cases, but you can be sure the more complex they can make it seem, the easier it is for people to digest their seemingly simple message. (Buy Microsoft!) He is even saying the issue is beyond the established firms! This is so tough yet so important, Microsoft has to do it because nobody else will.

This implies Linux is some sort of a fad. People are buying in without full knowledge. That perception and noise thing again. Microsoft has been doing things a long time, so they must have the experience to know better which things to study and which don't make sense right?

All of this again, speaks strongly to the smaller enterprises, or the smaller pieces of larger ones. They just want to spend their money and not have to worry much about justifying the decision. Again, plays nicely into Microsofts hands. A large part of their message is reducing the complexity of computing down to the level us mortals can understand.

All directed toward the ease of staying with Microsoft products. They have done the work so you don't have to. Simply pay them year after year and they will keep you covered.

Would they be looking hard at improving their value proposition if Linux was not there to force the issue? Would all these studies be necessary if they really were working hard to keep their costs down and value high? How can their costs be in our best interests when they make 80 percent on Office and Windows? Casts the above in a little bit different light doesn't it?

"It's so much less about the exact numbers, it's more about saying 'Don't believe what you think or might have heard.' Actually take a fact-based approach from analysts or do your own analysis to take an educated, informed decision."

This nicely says that all of us are basically making noise. Before doing anything, you need to do all of this work, spend money and hire the top firms, or you are wasting your time.

Quite simply, this says to me they are hurting big. The idea that it is hard to switch or try new things is a big part of this interview and seems to be growing theme in general. This is a short term view often used by incumbant players in a rapidly maturing marketplace.

"Part of your job is to learn about and understand Linux. In your opinion, why is it succeeding?
Taylor: First, define succeeding."

--That hurts. Classic politics 101. If there is no upside, don't respond. Divert the discussion to hide the answer. Folks, we are on the way!

" The adoption rates have been so quick. It's moving off the edge and deeper into data centers.
Taylor: Why is it moving? If you take a look at the Unix-to-Linux migrations, it's about the Unix equals Linux, Linux equals Unix connection. It's a skill-set issue; people know how to work on a character-based mode. They know how to write in Perl. We have Services for Unix that people can use, but most of your diehard Unix system administrators don't even want to touch a mouse or a GUI.

--He wants us to all look old and archaic. The GUI is the new way to compute. Let Microsoft do all the heavy lifting while you point 'n click to your new license arrangements. There is so much wrong with this, it could be its own journal entry. Lots of negative implications, diehard, not wanting to touch a mouse, old, lacking skills. All of it is plain old FUD. He does ask the right question though. "Why are they moving?", but does not allow the correct answer to come forward; namely, that people can continue to build enterprise ready systems on cheaper hardware and free software.

To the bottom-tier area, that's where it's more of a footprint, disposability issue where we offer a broad set of solutions and you pick what you need. With Linux, you can build a single-purpose server and do these things very easily. In those two environments, you don't see too many big, complex stack-integration Linux solutions. That's where it gets a lot harder for them and a lot easier for us to communicate our value. We have an ability to work with our partners and our solutions to integrate up and down the stack."

Here he does identify an issue Linux has. We are not yet as ready to deploy in mid-sized enterprises, because of the skill-set issue. Problem is the same at both ends though. On the high-end, Microsoft wants people to retrain and use their more limited systems, at the lower-end, Microsoft doesn't want people learning any more than they have to, but pay them instead. These views are not compatable in the longer term at all.

(more about noise, maybe for another entry...)

How about it? Comments, ideas?