How much will it cost to kill the open Web and elbow GNU/Linux?

A couple of days ago we discussed Novell's Moonlight and explained why it assists Microsoft's fight against Adobe, Google, GNU/Linux, Ajax and many other rivals (or rival technologies employed by those rivals).

It ought to have become increasingly apparent by now that Novell and Microsoft are on the same boat, shooting cannonballs at those whom they perceive as individual or common rivals. One notable example of common rivals is probably Red Hat. Novell is part of the Microsoft ecosystem, which it will probably continue to defend while staying out of its more valued territories.

“Instead of open standards that everyone can implement, Microsoft wants the Net to become .NET (Silverlight), which is proprietary, totally controlled by Microsoft.”Microsoft has made it very clear that it wants to rip and replace some of the open fabric of the World Wide Web. Instead of open standards that everyone can implement, Microsoft wants the Net to become .NET (Silverlight), which is proprietary, totally controlled by Microsoft.

The lengths to which Microsoft will go are nearly as disturbing as its anti-competitive methods and goals considered in isolation. As an example we previously mentioned the US Library of Congress, which despite being a reservoir of national assets, was willing to accept millions of dollars from Microsoft. "What for," you ask? to shut out some of Microsoft's rivals with a more Microsoft-controlled redesigned Web site/portal [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It's similar to the BBC fiasco. Due to public accessibility regulations or at least obligations, The Library of Congress may be pushing the law here, if not turning this into a form of scandal.

Fall not for the impression that nothing is done to address this. The European Commission (EC), as angry as it already is about Microsoft's abuses, investigates abuse with Silverlight, which in its own right provides validation to arguments resisting it. If the EC got peeved, why shouldn't others?

According to the following new article, Microsoft's marketing blitz is all fake too, which is akin to the "grassroots" methods Microsoft is seen writing about explicitly in antitrust exhibits, as well as using it on the surface to this very date.

Is the Silverlight Adoption Rate Artificially Inflated?

[...]

So, that's where we are today. Microsoft is now also claiming that they're measuring the downloads per day in the millions (may not be accurate, that's just what I remember from the last Channel 9 video I watched). Partners have been popping up everywhere and people are using Silverlight applications for what looks like everything under the sun. The problem is that this thriving partner community is a little misleading.

Everything from the Oscars to huge websites and the upcoming Olympics in China seems to be coming out in Silverlight nowadays. The problem I have with this is that these really can't be used as effective case studies because they would be, in my opinion, biased. Microsoft essentially approaches these people who have huge reach on the Internet. They then send in consultants or MS people in droves to actually write the Silverlight app for the new partner (or cooperate with their existing dev team), and then provide financial incentives for being a flagship Silverlight adopter.

Microsoft is, as always, behind the choice of consumer-hostile, Windows-centric solutions. As we saw in the case of the Library of Congress, a form of bribery is seen as acceptable too (the price of breaking the Web and 'punishing' Linux users).

It is rather astounding that not much attention is paid, let alone awareness is raised, about a company spreading its patent poison through the Web (downstreaming in a big way). This is a company with an extensive history of saber-rattling, bullying, lawsuits by proxy, and obscene forms of intimidation. It goes without saying that Microsoft also uses this as a method for leaving its #1 competitor behind. ⬆