EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.24.09

Bill Gates on C# as “Key Element in Preventing Commodization by Linux”

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Database, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Oracle, Steve Ballmer at 10:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Insights from Bill Gates (and colleagues) on platform strategy

THE NEXT exhibit which we deal with is Exhibit PX06917 (2001) [PDF]. This relatively recent one has had OCR applied to the PDF. It is only 2-3 pages long (depending on whether one needs the attachment/s).

Let us just summarise a few key points. Microsoft is afraid of Java; very much afraid not only because it’s better, but also because of its support (with parity) for many distinguishable platforms. It’s not Windows-centric like .NET.

Bill Gates tells Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer:

Our applications platform message is quite confused today. Pieces like CLR, WMI, MSMQ, XML runtime, Biztalk, MTS,IIS, ASP+, Load Balancing, Message bus, ,SOAP, UDDI and Yukon are not consistent and reinforcing. Basic standards like eventing, logging, and filtering have to be established. The disconnection of these products make our message when trying to win back the developers who like JAVA and J2EE very difficult especially when we have the limitation of being only on Windows and those technologies are supporled on many platforms by many companies. Although we have waited a long time for the shipment of VS with the URT that doesn’t give us anywhere near a complete consistent platform story.

The ‘smoking gun’ is probably this following bit which speaks about GNU/Linux:

We have to take a hard look at our tools and consider how to be a better high end solution. We have to spend a lot of money to make sure the openness of C# is well understood and that it is accepted at a level that allows our innovations to have traction.

I think that between Paul, Yuval and Eric’s group with leader from Rick Rashid we should be able to go through another iteration on this (like we did with NGWS) and come up with some clear answers.

The strength of this platform and the innovation around it is the key element in preventing commodization by Linux, our installed base and Network Appliance vendors.

Gates refers to Yuval Neeman, whose take on .NET inside Linux/UNIX can be inferred from this other antitrust exhibit and another appearance can be found in an antitrust exhibit that we disclosed yesterday. “Paul” might be Paul Flessner (not Paul Maritz), who wanted to "whack" Dell over GNU/Linux and “Eric” would be Eric Rudder, whom we last mentioned yesterday. As pointed out before, Rudder once said: “As many of you may know, we’ve actually kind of broadened the product portfolio of Visual Studio, targeting all the way from the low end with students and hobbyists, kind of competitive in that Linux space, making sure that every developer has a copy of .NET and is trained in writing .NET solutions. [...] I think it will really help us in our competition with open source.

The text above is very relevant to the role of Mono. One of our readers warns that “the Mono guard seems to have started to undermine even Debian.” We will come to this at a later stage, or rather just return to it.

David Vaskevitch writes to Bill Gates, Jim Allchin, and Steve Ballmer with some attached papers, but he seems rather demoralised and afraid of Oracle too.

Having now sent these I have to admit I also feel pretty weird sending them. Weird and conflicted. On the one hand, I feel pretty deeply that if we don’t do what is described in these papers, and some of the others I’ve been writing, we will either a) not achieve our long term goals (platform adoption, business growth, developer wins, etc), or b) get into relatively serious trouble (never catch up with Oracle, not have the platform the biggest apps are wdtten on, miss key changes). All of that makes me want to write these papers, want to see them acted on. Then there’s the “on the other hand” ..

On the other hand I am now totally disconnected from pretty much everything to do with our platform. These papers are hard to write in a wide variety of ways: time consuming, energy draining, etc. And, being so disconnected from the platform, it means that most of what gets written in papers like this is just not going to happen. True of storage. True for distributed app support. True for things in general. So, I’m saying out loud, that I’m trying to figure out whether to even keep writing this stuff. Besides the fact that it might well not have much effect, chews up time, etc, it must be annoying for the people actually having to build this stuff, to have people off in other areas writing this kind of stuff down for them.

The next one I would have written was going to drill into the whole “distributed” and “application server” mess. But, I’d really appreciate feedback on whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and why, to be writing in this vein…

The core of this exhibit is below, but there are also attachments which we may translate into plain text pretty soon, the reason being that if we are aiming to accumulate a searchable database of all the Comes vs Microsoft exhibits, it wouldn’t be complete without the attachments. They look like very interesting pieces of information. For instance, how about this little gem: “It’s our decision. Do we want to create the next revolution, fundamentally change the definition of the term database? So, others can start keeping up with us? Or do we want to stick to improving databases as we all know them today, and continue slowly catching up with everybody else?

Embrace and extend? Making up one’s own pseudo standards? WinFS? Which choice did they eventually make? Whichever was obstructing competition more effectively?

“At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very interested in it inmediately [sic].”

Miguel de Icaza


Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit PX06917, as text


From: Bill Gates [/o=microsoft/ou=northamerica/cn=Recipients/cn=1648] on behalf of Bill Gates
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:34 PM
To: Jim Allchin (Exchange); Steve Ballmer
Subject: FW: The Fifth Database Revolution

We need to get someone very technical to pull together our platform story.

Jim could do it but its probably best for him to delegate it to a small group with a leader.

The leader could be Eric Rudder or Rick Rashid or someone I am not thinking of. Some good work was done during the NGWS days that needs to be carried through.

Eric tells me that currently there is some progress on this stuff but not a clear direction from management.

It is as a key advisor to this group that David’s input would become important. The key stuff is under Paul Flessner and Yuval Neeman but neither of them is right to drive it directly. It does touch on other pieces like WMI and Office extensibility.

This is one of the bigger items on my memo and its waiting there. I am not saying its easy work to do.

Lets pick how this is going to be driven.

I need to discuss that with both of you for a number of items in the memo but this is perhaps the most urgent.
Here is the latest on this from the memo:

Applications platform
Our applications platform message is quite confused today. Pieces like CLR, WMI, MSMQ, XML runtime, Biztalk, MTS,IIS, ASP+, Load Balancing, Message bus, ,SOAP, UDDI and Yukon are not consistent and reinforcing. Basic standards like eventing, logging, and filtering have to be established. The disconnection of these products make our message when trying to win back the developers who like JAVA and J2EE very difficult especially when we have the limitation of being only on Windows and those technologies are supporled on many platforms by many companies. Although we have waited a long time for the shipment of VS with the URT that doesn’t give us anywhere near a complete consistent platform story.

The most consistent platform in the industry is Oracle. They have used their database as the center of gravity to drive a very strong story. We need to integrate more capabilities like email and directory and workflow and file system where Oracle has done very little. In the basic intrastructure area though there are some lesssons to learn from them.

We have talked about many of these problems but not pulled things together. MSMQ is a bit of an orphan. Our transaction strategy isn’t getting any traction while BEA has established an $800M per year business around that technology. We did a good job on MSMQ and MTS but they couldn’t thrive on their own. Our decision to make Yukon the center of gravity and to connecl Yukon to the URT should give us the clear starting point. We may need to be able to package Yukon so that it doesn’t feel like a database if all you want is a Message bus. We may need to create some subset implementations of things like Queuing for size and speed reasons. However the API set should be consistent. We may need to be compatible with some of the J2EE apis.

Our application platform for the server and the client need to be the same. The strength of our approach is that code should be able to run Offline. This highlights again the importance of a Distributed Application Architecture where code can determine what it needs to execute on a different server or down on the client. ASP+ has to be made reasonable as a client side API set which it is not today.

We have to take a hard look at our tools and consider how to be a better high end solution. We have to spend a lot of money to make sure the openness of C# is well understood and that it is accepted at a level that allows our innovations to have traction.

1

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6917
Comes V. Microsoft
MS-CC-Bu 000000089456

I think that between Paul, Yuval and Eric’s group with leader from Rick Rashid we should be able to go through another iteration on this (like we did with NGWS) and come up with some clear answers.

The strength of this platform and the innovation around it is the key element in preventing commodization by Linux, our installed base and Network Appliance vendors. We are in the best position to define the distributed application model that allows work to be moved out into the Network. We don’t have enough research our product group people pushing this agenda but we have the best opportunity. This is what it takes to seize leadership in caching, load balancing and protocols. I think between Management/Setup and a vision of how our platform is Distributed we give ourselves a chance to lead in all the Level 7 networking pieces. I almost included this as a separate item but executing on these two technical pieces will give us what we need except for packaging, marketing and sales force.

There is a major packaging question once we get architectural coherence. To what degree should we package or charge for the rich so called middleware pieces separately from the rest of the platform? Are there advanced forms of some of these pieces that cost extra? Most of the API set we want supported in the base server with understandable advanced services costing extra.

We are discussing with IBM a joint effort to agree on most of the Application server pieces so that companies have a choice of our two implementations. Although this would be an unexpected partnership I see a lot of advanlages for both companies. I think they can help with parts of the architecture. The current view is that we do not share any code
between the companies.

We also need to drive Microsoft to use the new platform to prove it out and show it off. Our Services need to use these architectures so that our tools make them easy to extend.

—–Original Message—–
From: David Vaskevitch
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 6.12 PM
To: Bill Gates
Cc: Jim Allchin; Steve Ballmer
Subject: The Fifth Database Revolution

A while ago I promised Bill that I would write down in some detail what has to happen next in database land. It’s also come up in conversation with Steve. So, here are two papers. There are also two papers dating back about two years that supply some of the more intricate underlying technical details. The second paper is more technical, more pointed, and better written. The first paper is more motivational, kind of, and, because I switched to the second paper before finishing the first one, the first one runs out of steam near the end.

(Attachment names)
The Fifth Database
Revolution….

The Structure of
the Fifth Dat..,

Having now sent these I have to admit I also feel pretty weird sending them. Weird and conflicted. On the one hand, I feel pretty deeply that if we don’t do what is described in these papers, and some of the others I’ve been writing, we will either a) not achieve our long term goals (platform adoption, business growth, developer wins, etc), or b) get into relatively serious trouble (never catch up with Oracle, not have the platform the biggest apps are wdtten on, miss key changes). All of that makes me want to write these papers, want to see them acted on. Then there’s the “on the other hand” ..

On the other hand I am now totally disconnected from pretty much everything to do with our platform. These papers are hard to write in a wide variety of ways: time consuming, energy draining, etc. And, being so disconnected from the platform, it means that most of what gets written in papers like this is just not going to happen. True of storage. True for distributed app support. True for things in general. So, I’m saying out loud, that I’m trying to figure out whether to even keep writing this stuff. Besides the fact that it might well not have much effect, chews up time, etc, it must be annoying for the people actually having to build this stuff, to have people off in other areas writing this kind of stuff down for them.

The next one I would have written was going to drill into the whole “distributed” and “application server” mess. But, I’d really appreciate feedback on whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and why, to be writing in this vein…

2
MS-CC-Bu 000000089457
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Credit: wallclimber

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

12 Comments

  1. max stirner said,

    June 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Gravatar

    “We have to spend a lot of money to make sure the openness of C# is well understood”

    this was 8 years ago.. that would explain the crazy amount of mono shilling we’re seing now, with the first linux desktops on the market etc.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Some of Mono’s advancers are former (e.g. Nat), current, or wannabe (e.g. Miguel) Microsoft employees, including the main desktop guy at Canonical, who came from Microsoft.

    lalala Reply:

    Only some? Every time that someone says something even remotely positive about mono, you label them a paid MS shill. So which is it? Some of Mono’s advancers are former, current, or wannabe MS employees, or all of them?

    twitter Reply:

    In the context of the above court documents, it seems that there are only two kinds of mono proponents. Those who work for M$ and know it and those who don’t know it. As the SLOG puts it, every line of code written to a M$ “standard” is a M$ victory. C# was designed with the destruction of GNU/Linux in mind.

    eet Reply:

    twitter, stop trolling this place!

    Needs Sunlight Reply:

    @lalala : that’s because there are three kinds of people who use M$ products: those who know nothing about computers, those who care nothing about computers and those who exploit the first two groups. The middle group is going to be quiet for obvious reasons, the first group is less likely to speak up. So it is no suprise that it is almost exclusively that third group that is spewing pro-mono tripe.

    Mono is trying to get in on Java and GUIs with Qt/Jambi or Swing:
    http://doc.trolltech.com/qtjambi-4.4/html/com/trolltech/qt/qtjambi-index.html
    http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/desktop/

    However, as some recent projects like Gnote show us, sometimes it is best to use C++:
    http://doc.trolltech.com/qtjambi-4.4/html/com/trolltech/qt/

    Needs Sunlight Reply:

    @Roy: That main desktop guy at Canonical who came from Microsoft, is that Jo Shields or a second problem?

    Regarding decommoditization, the M$ strategy is outlined rather clearly in the “Halloween” documents. It’s not so much that the M$ products are designed with the destruction of GNU/Linux in mind, that is more a side effect of the goal of destroying all non-M$ competition.

    eet Reply:

    …and they are certainly Illuminati! 8)

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes, I was reminded of it this morning as I went through hundreds of Comes exhibits, including Java one.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    @eet: find another site to troll.

  2. photo retouching said,

    June 25, 2009 at 5:58 am

    Gravatar

    Instead of revelling in the fact that there is competition, these big wealthy corporations seek to destroy and dominate. Basically the consumer is left with little choice!

    Omar Abdul-Hafez Reply:

    That’s why it’s called: “Monopolistic Competition.”

What Else is New


  1. Links 26/4/2019: Best GNU/Linux Laptops and More

    Links for the day



  2. Research Into Who's Putting DRM Inside Linux

    Back doors may be hard to detect (requires understanding a lot of underlying code), but how about malicious 'features' or antifeatures that are put in the kernel to serve Hollywood at the expense of the kernel's users?



  3. "Dia da Liberdade" in Portugal -- Wilted Carnations in EPOnia

    "Reliable sources report that the discontent continues to simmer among the EPOnian peasantry and that the steam is slowly but inexorably building up inside the pressure cooker," tells us a guest writer



  4. The Quality of Patents is Connected to the Quality of Life of Patent Examiners

    EPO staff is not happy (a new President has not changed things) and the problems associated with low quality of patents become more visible in courtrooms



  5. American Patent Courts Keep Narrowing Patent Scope, No Matter What Few Politicians Are Doing on Behalf of Litigation Firms and Patent Trolls

    Acts of desperation in the patent microcosm of the United States, where judges now overwhelmingly reject software patents at all levels (tribunals, lower courts, higher courts)



  6. Links 25/4/2019: Rancher Labs Releases Slim OS, OpenBSD 6.5 is Ready

    Links for the day



  7. Links 24/4/2019: Chrome 74, QEMU 4.0 Released

    Links for the day



  8. Supreme Court of the UK, Which Habitually Throws Out European Patents, May Overturn Troublesome Unwired Planet v Huawei Decision

    A lot of European Patents are facing growing scrutiny from courts (Team UPC, including Bristows, publicly complains about it this month) and "greenwashing" of the Office won't be enough to paint/frame these patents as "ethical"



  9. German Federal Patent Court Curbs the Patent Maximalism of the EPO, Which Promotes Patents on Nature and/or Maths Every Single Day

    European courts are restraining the EPO, which has been trying to bypass or replace such courts (with the UPC); it certainly seems as though European Patents rapidly lose their legitimacy or much-needed presumption of validity



  10. Any 'Linux' Foundation Needs to Be Managed by Geeks, Not Politicians and PR People

    Linux bureaucracy has put profits way ahead of technical merits and this poses a growing threat or constitutes risk to the direction of the project, not to mention its ownership



  11. Links 23/4/2019: Kodi 'Leia' 18.2 and DeX Everywhere

    Links for the day



  12. Code of Coercion

    Entryism is visible for all to see, but pointing it out is becoming a risky gambit because of the "be nice!" (or "be polite!") crowd, which shields the perpetrators of a slow and gradual corporate takeover



  13. António Campinos Would Not Refer to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal If He Did Not Control the Outcomes

    António Campinos and his ilk aren’t interested in patent quality because his former ‘boss’, who publicly denied there were issues and vainly rejected patent quality concerns as illegitimate, is now controlled by him (reversal of roles) and many new appointees at the top are "yes men" (or women) of Campinos, former colleagues whom he bossed at EUIPO (as expected)



  14. Links 22/4/2019: Linux 5.1 RC6, New Release of Netrunner and End of Scientific Linux

    Links for the day



  15. USPTO and EPO Both Slammed for Abandoning Patent Quality and Violating the Law/Caselaw in Order to Grant Illegitimate Patents on Life/Nature and Mathematics

    Mr. Iancu, the ‘American Battistelli’ (appointed owing to nepotism), mirrors the ‘Battistelli operandi’, which boils down to treating judges like they’re stooges and justices like an ignorable nuisance — all this in the name of litigation profits, which necessitate constant wars over illegitimate patents (it is expensive to prove their illegitimacy)



  16. IRC Proceedings: January 27th, 2019 – March 24th, 2019

    Many IRC logs



  17. IRC Proceedings: December 2nd, 2018 – January 26th, 2019

    Many IRC logs



  18. Links 21/4/2019: SuperTuxKart's 1.0 Release, Sam Hartman Is Debian’s Newest Project Leader (DPL)

    Links for the day



  19. The EPO's Use of Phrases Like “High-Quality Patent Services” Means They Know High-Quality European Patents Are 'Bygones'

    The EPO does a really poor job hiding the fact that its last remaining objective is to grant as many European Patents as possible (and as fast as possible), conveniently conflating quality with pace



  20. A Reader's Suggestion: Directions for Techrights

    Guest post by figosdev



  21. Links 20/4/2019: Weblate 3.6 and Pop!_OS 19.04

    Links for the day



  22. The Likes of Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), Team Campinos and Team UPC Don't Represent Europe But Hurt Europe

    The abject disinterest in patent quality and patent validity (as judged by courts) threatens Europe but not to the detriment of those who are in the 'business' of suing and printing lots of worthless patents



  23. The Linux Foundation Needs to Change Course Before GNU/Linux (as a Free Operating System) is Dead

    The issues associated with the Linux Foundation are not entirely new; but Linux now incorporates so many restrictions and contains so many binary blobs that one begins to wonder what "Linux" even means



  24. Largest Patent Offices Try to Leave Courts in a State of Disarray to Enable the Granting of Fake Patents in the US and Europe

    Like a monarchy that effectively runs all branches of government the management of the EPO is trying to work around the judiciary; the same is increasingly happening (or at least attempted) in the United States



  25. Links 19/4/2019: PyPy 7.1.1, LabPlot 2.6, Kipi Plugins 5.9.1 Released

    Links for the day



  26. Links 18/4/2019: Ubuntu and Derivatives Have Releases, digiKam 6.1.0, OpenSSH 8.0 and LibreOffice 6.2.3

    Links for the day



  27. Freedom is Not a Business and Those Who Make 'Business' by Giving it Away Deserve Naming

    Free software is being parceled and sold to private monopolisers; those who facilitate the process enrich themselves and pose a growing threat to freedom in general — a subject we intend to tackle in the near future



  28. Concluding the Linux Foundation (LF) “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 3)

    Conferences constructed or put together based on payments rather than merit pose a risk to the freedom of free software; we conclude our series about events set up by the largest of culprits, which profits from this erosion of freedom



  29. “Mention the War” (of Microsoft Against GNU/Linux)

    The GNU/Linux desktop (or laptops) seems to be languishing or deteriorating, making way for proprietary takeover in the form of Vista 10 and Chrome OS and “web apps” (surveillance); nobody seems too bothered — certainly not the Linux Foundation — by the fact that GNU/Linux itself is being relegated or demoted to a mere “app” on these surveillance platforms (WSL, Croûton and so on)



  30. The European Patent Office Does Not Care About the Law, Today's Management Constantly Attempts to Bypass the Law

    Many EPs (European Patents) are actually "IPs" (invalid patents); the EPO doesn't seem to care and it is again paying for corrupt scholars to toe the party line


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts