The term "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) appears to have originated in the computer hardware industry in the 1970s when IBM implied that customers would be safer with their equipment rather than those of competitors. There was an implication that bad things were likely to happen if a customer were to use a competitor's hardware. The tactic was later taken up and more aggressively applied by Microsoft Corporation in the 1980s, and has, perhaps, more recently reached its peak in use and sophistication during a long series of attacks on the Linux operating system.

 

In a series of internally leaked documents in the late 1990s, Microsoft revealed discussions of strategies to meet the challenge of Open Source. These documents were annotated by Eric Raymond and named the "Halloween Documents" because of the date on which they were leaked. These documents reveal the underhand tactics used to promote misconceptions about FOSS, while at the same time recognising the many strengths of Open Source; this recognition being the antithesis of the public front.

 

In 1999, a survey hit the headlines by an organisation called Mindcraft, which purported to show that Microsoft NT server outperformed Linux, overturning previous benchmarks that had indicated that Linux was faster at serving web pages, and Windows native file sharing. It later transpired that the survey had been commissioned by Microsoft and that Mindcraft had effectively rigged the results in misconfiguring the Linux server. Subsequent examination of Linux did throw up some issues with Linux performance; however, the kernel developers took the most practical action and simply worked to overcome these weaknesses.

 

Unfounded mud-slinging against Linux continued into the 2000s, but by 2002, in another document to Eric Raymond, it was becoming clear even to Microsoft that this strategy was beginning to backfire.

 

By 2002, the tactics had swung to Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign, which collected together a series of white papers and reports which concluded that Linux was more expensive than Microsoft. As with the Mindcraft fiasco, it is not clear whether these reports were simply Microsoft-sponsored spin. David A Wheeler in his extensive review on FOSS argues strongly for a more intelligent assessment, partly by using statistics that show the case to be dramatically the opposite under common scenarios. For example, as of 2006, he shows a basic saving of $250,000 in the installation of a mail server for a company of 250 employees. Most importantly, he points out that methodologies are often flawed in calculating TCO. The complexity of calculation and the factors and scenarios involved are such that TCO is meaningless unless calculated very specifically for the organisation in question.

 

Sufficient reports have been generated to show that the the TCO argument is indeed FUD and is losing momentum, but that doesn't mean the attacks have stopped.

 

An argument, given in the "Get the Facts" campaign and coupled with Microsoft's campaign to sell their operating systems as strong on security, says that Linux is less secure than Windows. The arguments are well discussed in an article by Nicholas Petreley which thoroughly debunks much of the misdirection and abuse of statistics used in support of what amounts to an unfounded attack. The statistical analysis unsurprisingly paints a different picture.

 

This is the nature of FUD. By mounting a high-profile campaign based on misinformation against an opponent without the wherewithall for defence in the same arena, the mud will stick. The attacks have had their benefits to Open Source: pride in the quality of product has piqued Open Source communities to fix shortcomings where genuine problems have been shown.

 

The issue still remains. Someone wishing to deploy an IT solution is faced with a vociferous and seemingly objective argument against Open Source. Without recourse to searching the net for the opposing viewpoint, and the time and effort to come to a balanced conclusion, the odds would seem stacked in favour of the megacorporations. However, the tide appears to be turning simply because of the reliability and quality of Open Source products. The press is less reticent in publishing stories where Open Source is used, and organisations are less reticent in "coming out" about their use of Open Source. Respectable marketing and consultancy firms now talk openly about OSS with respect, and Microsoft themselves admit internally their arguments are failing.