I found this article today in Linux Today newsletter.

Why Microsoft Should Acquire Linux

The article’s primary position is that by controlling key Linux distributors, Microsoft can ensure standards and ongoing development of the Linux platform. Just when you think you’ve heard the stupidest thing in the history of creation, somebody always feels they have to do one better.

If you do a search for further articles by Gundeep Hora you’ll find that this person’s entire portfolio consists of pointing out flaws in Linux (real or imaginary) and boosting benefits in MS products (real or imaginary).

I’m all in favour of opinion pieces both pro and con Linux issues. Real, substantive writing, however should balance opinion with facts from reputable sources. Hora’s work rarely cites any sources but his own imagination, and the lack of depth contained within those insights is a clear example of how weak reasoning destroys rational arguments.

Not wanting to fall in the same trap, I wanted to take a minute and double check to make sure I wasn’t being too hard on the guy (not familiar enough with what appears to be an Indian name to tell the gender). So I examined his arguments and decided to take them on one by one, rationally.

Opening argument — Trust me?

Here is the opening text from his article:

Alright, I’m going to say this. I think Microsoft should acquire Linux. Now, I understand that Linux is not as independent of an OS as Windows; it’s a movement towards the open environment for applications; therefore, the standard M&A process won’t work. However, it wouldn’t hurt to acquire the makers of Mandriva, SuSE, Red Hat, Ubuntu and a host of other popular distributions from their corporate or volunteer makers. Trust me; it’s only for the better.

Couple of mistakes of fact in here.

• Microsoft cannot acquire Linux any more than it could acquire Mom’s apple pie.
• He provides no basis for his statement that MS acquiring those companies ‘couldn’t hurt.’ I’m no economist, but this article over at CRN that discusses the economic merit of a similar deal between Sun Microsystems and Novell a few years back seems to indicate that the deal would hurt MS for many of the same reasons. My favourite quote is that the two companies would be like “two garbage trucks heading on a collision course.”

A lot of Linux enthusiasts claim that Microsoft sabotages Linux.

Exaggerated argument. Some very vocal open-source and free software advocates claim that. In defense of those MS critics, Microsoft has a long and documented history of using a strategy known as *Embrace, Extend, and Extinquish*. Looking at the recent Microsoft and Novell deal, it is reasonable to see why people are nervous that this E3 strategy is being used once again.

Microsoft can use the acquired companies to regain lost market share.

Hora clearly hasn’t done his research here. In the server space, Linux has displaced more Unix servers than windows servers. On the desktop, Linux doesn’t have legs yet in the enterprise space, although that is changing. So Microsoft hasn’t lost any revenue to Linux yet. In many areas Linux has found new niches to fill, or fill spaces that Microsoft didn’t have the ability to penetrate. Linux’s growth has just not been at the expense of Microsoft. The evidence doesn’t support it.

Where both Microsoft and Novell have already said they will grow their revenue is in the service end of the market. The deal also covers collaboration and interoperability. These are strategies that speak of an acknowledgement that neither side is going anywhere. Now, how can Hora claim any degree of honesty or credibility with these suggestions?

Microsoft could, but wouldn’t dismantle the open source community as a result.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the software landscape in all markets, whether open source or proprietary.

Let’s just entertain the thought that Microsoft could stuff Linux on the shelves. Let’s pretend — just for a second — that it has already happened.

So Linux goes away. Then some kid named Joe Schultz takes the code from Linux and forks it as is his right under the GPL and re-releases it as the Shultzix operating system. Then the community continues its work and forgets about Microsoft.

Microsoft’s ability to contain Linux ended the moment Linux was shared between Linus Torvalds and the first person who agreed to use it under the terms of the GPL. At that moment, Linux was free to the world. Haro is still thinking free as in beer, rather than free as in speech.

Having reviewed the above notes I would think that I am not being too hard on this Haro fellow. I’d spend some more time debunking the other things that this ‘Editor-in-Chief’ has to say about Linux and open source, but I really don’t want to waste the electricity.

Just one word of advice Haro. If you’re going to do some opinion pieces, try to include some journalism in with your work. It will make for a more interesting read and will lend credibility to your arguments.