On The Wrong Side of History

Red Hat chief defends its Linux-based software products against an onslaught of criticism from Microsoft. But the real issue for the software giant is the scourge that the open source movement inflicts on its profitability.

by Matthew J. Szulik Red Hat President & Chief Executive Officer [March 29, 2001]
As Red Hat Chief Szulik is focused on building a profitable next-generation open source software company around powering anything from enterprise-class Internet servers to handheld devices. Szulik has over 20 years of experience in the technology industry, including his time served with Red Hat.

Remember that rhyme you probably chanted as a child? "I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say about me sticks to you?" At Red Hat, we've been contemplating the significance of the rhyming verse, as each week seems to bring a new round of Linux-bashing and open-source smashing from Microsoft Corp.

First, Microsoft's Doug Miller says of Linux that "there's very little value in free." Then Steve Ballmer says that Linux is the biggest threat facing Microsoft—at least he got that part right. Now, James Allchin says that open source is primarily an "intellectual property destroyer... the worst thing to happen to the software industry" and that Linux "kills innovation."

There's so much fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) expressed by Microsoft executives, that it's hard to know where to start. I think Microsoft's terror of open source software and their attacks on Linux fall into three general categories:

1. "Linux is an immature product"
   This is obviously and demonstrably untrue. Linux has been under constant development by a worldwide network of software experts for eight years. It's currently captured almost 30 percent of the server market, according to IDC market research, and continues strong growth. How is it possible that an immature product could be the OS of choice for 30 percent of the savvy server market? Linux is a strong, reliable, flexible and robust operating environment that gets better every day. Its security is rated above that of Windows and the phrase blue screen of death does not refer to Linux systems—but rather to callow Microsoft-made Windows products.
2. "Linux threatens Microsoft's core business"
   That's the gist of what Steve Ballmer said and it's a perceptive comment. Linux and open source do threaten Microsoft at the server operating system level. But even more dangerous, the open source model threatens the core business strategy of Microsoft—domination, monopoly, total control and restricting consumer choice. History has shown that hegemonic behavior and those who attempt to restrict freedom ultimately fail—Microsoft is on the wrong side of history.
3. "Open source destroys intellectual property... kills innovation"
   This is where I say "I'm rubber, you're glue?'' This is a bizarre accusation. Open source is creating tremendous intellectual property in software that is copyrighted through general public licenses (GPL) every day—the real issue is, who owns it? With open source, the users own it, improve on it, and share it—to everyone's benefit. With Microsoft's approach, Microsoft owns the intellectual property. As for killing innovation, I'd argue that a worldwide monopoly enforced by business practices that a federal judge has found to be predatory and anti-competitive probably has more to do with killing innovation than anything the open source movement could ever do.

When you're in a business that's under attack by Microsoft, you have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's nice to know that Linux and open source have grown so popular within mainstream computing—that Microsoft is scared.

On the other hand, it's troubling to be in a great intellectual debate—perhaps the most fundamental in the history of computing—having to face such specious and unfounded arguments and public accusations as Microsoft's executives purport.

Still, the debate is in full swing and if history is our guide, I know which movement is on the right side of this saga. Freedom, access and individual rights always prevail in the long run.

—End