Why Dislike Microsoft?

We (the ones involved in MSDNNepal.com) have faced several questions regarding Microsoft and its activities here in Nepal. We got many regarding Free Software and others, too. But I will concentrate on questions regarding Microsoft here.

I will also not primarily discuss about their software (Windows, Office) in this post. Lets leave that for later.

Q. So, why dislike Microsoft at all?
A. These are some of the reasons:

1. Anticompetitive Practices
Microsoft has always been known for their anticompetitive practices. They don’t actually care to build better software. They believe in knocking out the competition by all means, which barely involves creating better software. Here is a paper on “Microsoft – A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm” by “European Committe for Interoperable Systems“. It is recommended to go through the whole paper. Following are some of the extracts from it to get you interested. The sources from where they have been obtained are listed in the paper.

For more than two decades, Microsoft has engaged in a carefully designed and extremely
successful campaign to protect and extend its monopolies. Microsoft has repeatedly made
market allocation proposals to its competitors and has used a broad range of other
anticompetitive and unlawful tactics to eliminate potential rivals, including tying, predatory
product design, and intentional deception.

[...]

Microsoft recognized that, if any middleware product gained widespread
popularity, “developers might begin to rely upon APIs exposed by the middleware for basic
routines rather than relying upon the API set included in Windows.” Microsoft has therefore
crushed middleware threats, such as Netscape’s web browser.

[...]

Microsoft’s past conduct demonstrates its ability and willingness to engage in unlawful acts to the detriment of consumers, and awareness of its history is valuable today in understanding Microsoft’s ongoing business practices and strategies.

[...]

…reviews a number of Microsoft’s past actions to extinguish potential competitive threats. These include Microsoft’s: (a) campaign against DR-DOS; (b) anticompetitive per processor license fees; (c) retaliation against IBM; (d) threats and retaliation against Intel; (e) elimination of Word Perfect; (f) deceptive WISE software program; (g) elimination of Netscape; (h) deception of Java developers; (i) elimination of rival media players; and (j) campaign against rival server operating systems.

[...]

This initial interoperability came to be known as part of Microsoft’s now-classic “embrace, extend, and extinguish” strategy, which Microsoft has subsequently and successfully employed in many other product areas.

[...]

To read the whole paper, click here.

Since Microsoft has done these things in the past, we cannot think that they will not do it again in different parts of the world (including our country Nepal), in different products (Linux?) and in various ways(Embrace Linux; Extent Linux – Mono/Moonlight with Novell and make developers feel safe with .NET?; and Extinguish – Have Novell stop Mono/Moonlight development and force users back to Windows?).

2. Vendor Locking
Microsoft tries to lock users into its products. To do that, it uses deviation from standards as the main tool.

In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft’s head of C++ development, Aaron Contorer, stated:

“The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most Independent Software Vendors would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead… It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (total cost of ownership), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.”

More information here.

They have admitted that they created Windows API to lock users into their platform. So it is obvious to think that they had similar intents when they created the .NET Framework (since it does not work well with Linux and other operating systems).

3. FUD
Microsoft uses FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubts) to enhance its sales. It says that Linux violates over 200 Linux patents and says “We will not sue Linux now”. Companies hesitate to adopt Linux because of these claims and that’s exactly what Microsoft wishes to accomplish.
They recently sued TomTom, a Linux based GPS devices maker, over “use of FAT (a file system from Microsoft)” (3 patent infringement claims) despite of the promise they made about “not suing over FAT” (that’s another story). Now, this shows that, if they find enough reasons to sue, they will do it. So what are they doing about over 200 patents? This shows that they do not have anything strong to start a legal fight, showing their claims are fallacious. Here is a “Sue me first Microsoft” list where users put up their organizations/names and challenge Microsoft to sue them.
Also, Microsoft tries put up a legal fight whenever they get a chance. They have even legally threatened a 17 year old boy named Mike Rowe who bought the domain MikeRoweSoft.com. They have even threatened Microsoft MVP (Microsoft Most Valuable Professional) for adding features to Microsoft Software.
This basically means, you have a equal chance of getting sued, no matter what you use. In fact, Microsoft has sued more people who use Windows than they have done with Linux users. So it is a better idea to not touch anything that belongs to Microsoft with a ten-foot pole. The best bet is to use a Linux distribution that does not endorse Microsoft in any way (eg. Fedora from Red Hat) or BSD.

4. Misinformation
Since it has been shown by various researches and deployers that have used both of the technologies that the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is less using Linux, Microsoft has always been funding researches to show that Microsoft’s technologies are better (in pricing) than equivalent Linux implementations. They have started “Get the facts” back in 2004, but that is full of case studies, that generally highlights spam filtering capabilities of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Exchange Server. I personally use Gmail (which runs on a Linux server) with Thunderbird (on Linux) as my mail client and get almost zero spam without any email filtering extension in place. Those who are serious about the spam issue should probably go with spam filtering add-ons at client side too.
Moreover, they even quote their consumers saying that they saved hardware costs. I simply don’t get it. The minimum system requirements for a Windows 2008 server is 1.4 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, SVGA Display with 800×600 resolution, 10GB disk space. So that is the hardware required for just the OS to run. If you wish to make it any useful, you need lots more. And if you wish to scale it further, you need even more.
Compare that with bare minimum requirements of Latest Ubuntu Server; 300 MHz processor, 64 MB of system memory (RAM), 4 GB of disk space (for full installation and swap space), VGA graphics card capable of 640×480 resolution. Even the Recommended minimum for Linux software is a lot lesser than equivalent Microsoft Software.
Now, talking of software, the pricing is similar. However, the benefit you have if you choose Linux server is that you can start it at zero price for software.
Conclusion: Get the facts you require yourselves. Don’t depend on (probably paid) reviews from third party that appear on Microsoft Site. If the reviews didn’t favor Microsoft, they wouldn’t be on their site.

Please feel free to add reasons why you like or dislike Microsoft via comments. I may also choose to include it in the main post with correct attribution.

Q. Okay, but isn’t it a good idea to let Microsoft help our country since our country needs technology?
A. Yes, our country is technology-hungry. That is the very reason we should not let Microsoft dominate our country’s market. If we let Microsoft (or any other proprietary software, which is non-competitive by nature) dominate our technology market, we will have to pay software tax in every payment we make. Consider paying for items in a departmental store which uses Microsoft software in their computer systems. Since the departmental store is a profit making entity, it will have to make enough profit to pay for the software it uses. So, it will add the price to the items sold. This seems like a small amount of money. But consider this in all businesses. Even worse, consider what will happen when every government/non-government entities using Microsoft (or other proprietary software. That will make the consumers pay for each installation of the Microsoft software and expensive hardware required to run their Softwares. This is indeed a serious issue considering a poor country like ours.
Most importantly, it is very difficult (or expensive) even if we decide to move to other technologies because of vendor-locking explained above. So, it is essential that we must use Free Software in every aspects of technology.

Q. But Microsoft is using legitimate ways to spread their technology. It is not possible to stop them, unless of course we become non-democratic and stop the use of their software by making it illegal.
A. First, they might be using seemingly legitimate ways, but they are not always so. It is possible if we understand what ways they are using to help foster their software here in Nepal. They use the following ways to spread their technologies. I have explained how to counter them, the best I can.

MSPs & Awareness (Misinformation) Programs
They select Microsoft Student Partners, from colleges, who are supposed to make the students aware of their technologies. But what they are doing actually is using them to promote their technologies over others. They use the students to organize their programs in the respective colleges with hopes of providing them a good career. The programs basically are brain washing stunts that make students believe that if they don’t get the Microsoft Certification or don’t use Microsoft Technologies, they will achieve nothing. They will have Engineering Students believe that they will not become successful engineers or won’t get a job if they don’t get Microsoft Certifications. Basically, there is nothing wrong with that. They are free to promote their products. However, they also add hatemongering towards other technologies in the process.

Here is what a Microsoft Trainer, an Electronics Engineer, said to us in one of their programs: “Engineers do not build things. They use it. Microsoft has already created software for us, we should use it rather than try to build our own”. This program had a tremendous effect on the students and almost all of them were ready to start the training. But thanks to the Department of our college that took an immediate action and informed the students that it was just an “advertisement” of the training program that they offered and warned the students responsible for bringing such programs to our college to not do it again. There are trainings that are based on other technologies, which are equally good or even better. Thanks to the seniors and knowledgeable friends that helped the students correct their misunderstanding. Not all colleges have department, teachers and seniors who are well informed and gracious enough to share their knowledge.

However, I have thought of several ways to counter this misinformation campaigns via MSPs and such programs. Here are a few I can think of:
1. Create a FOSS group in the college which organizes more programs than the Microsoft Programs to share information of Free Software and its benefits over proprietary software.
2. Discourage students to become a MSP. Inform them of the ill effects to their studies, their way of perceiving software and technologies, the misinformation they will be forced to give out to students and the ill effects they will cause to the country’s economy and innocent minds.
3. If there has to be (a) MSP(s), encourage students who are capable enough to know both sides of the coin and take appropriate decisions to which programs are good for the students and which are not. They should also be open and capable to discuss with other students (including the FOSS group) before enforcing a program to be held.
4. If such students are not available, some FOSS member who is ready to reject all the Microsoft programs should be encouraged. The MSP should “mis-inform” the advertising company that they are doing good or say that they do could not make arrangements to conduct the programs due to time constraints or such.
5. If such students are not available, students who are capable of “doing nothing” should be recommended to join the MSP program, so that their plans almost always don’t work.
6. If such programs are organized, all the members of the FOSS group must participate so that the seats of innocent students are occupied and hence the misinformation does not reach the innocent minds at all. If this is not possible (due to fees), at least one student of the FOSS community should participate who should correct the presenter when s/he gives out improper informations and suggest other alternatives too. Free awareness programs must follow inviting the students who participated in the programs held by Microsoft helpers.

I know that not all of them may not seem ethical, but I think they are legitimate. Please correct me or add more.

Contests
They open contests occasionally. You generally win advertising prop (T-Shirt, Watch or something with a Microsoft Brand Name) or a piece of their software. One such quiz is going on at the time of writing this article.
I have thought about countering these stunts:
1. All FOSS enthusiasts should participate in these contests and get the prizes. That reduces the chances of an innocent student.
2. If you win, you should collect the prize and if it is an advertisement prop, you should destroy their logos if you wish to use it. If that is not possible, you should destroy it all together.

They also come up with paid programming contests. The best way of going about them is not participating at all and discouraging others to participate as well. This way, the advertising agencies here will get lesser success and hence hopefully they will stop getting funds from Microsoft.

ELMS and Dreamspark
They have the ELMS and Dreamspark programs to provide Microsoft Product Licenses to students at no costs. However this may seem great at first sight, it is not. Nepali people have been using pirated software till date and most of us (Nepali) can’t tell pirated software from non-pirated ones. These programs have multiple benefits from Microsoft point of view. Not only they inform people about pirated software (“You’ve been using our software illegally”), they are also getting the students use and get accustomed to their software.
To counter this, the students must be made aware of the licenses, that are not covered in detail in their misinformative programs. Not only these licenses are “not supported” after the student is no longer a student, the software under these licenses cannot be used for any profit motives. That means if a student wants to develop a software that she wishes to sell, she must buy a retail copy of the OS and development tools used. This has been covered by fr3ak here.

I have given the required references and interpreted the information in my own personal way. Please “Get your own facts” and don’t depend entirely on this article to draw conclusions. Your comments will help the readers and us to make improvements in our way of thinking. Thank you for your time.

Further Reading:
http://www.fsf.org/
http://en.windows7sins.org/
http://boycottnovell.com/

If you think that this article is helpful, please share it in Facebook or Social bookmarking site of your choice below.