07.01.09
Posted in Debian, FOSS, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, Ubuntu at 5:10 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A lot of news about Mono with special emphasis on key developments
A GREAT DEAL has happened [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] since Richard Stallman spoke his mind about Mono. Coverage in the press was initially scarce because Stallman’s statement had been made public just before the end of the week, but here is ZDNet UK catching up.
GNU project founder Richard Stallman has called on developers to pull back from Mono, arguing that increasing use of the open-source toolset could prompt legal action by Microsoft.
Stallman does not even say much (or anything) about the fact that Mono makes Windows stronger [1, 2, 3]. Novell makes it happen. It is almost Novell’s obligation to do so because as the SCO-faithful Maureen O'Gara put it a couple of days ago, “Of course, without Microsoft propping up its Linux business, Novell would be in the tank.” To say more on the path to Windows, watch how Novell loses to its so-called ‘partner’. From the news:
Sydney Water has decided to migrate its email platform from Novell’s GroupWise to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange and is looking for a contractor to help implement the change.
Is Novell trying to befriend the company which takes away its Netware and GroupWise customers? If so, why? And why does it help Microsoft by promoting and spreading .NET? GreyGeek writes the following in LinuxToday:
De Icaza has been trying for EIGHT YEARS to get a distro to become totally dependent on MONO, and since Novell bought De Icaza, both have increased their propaganda efforts, with the assistance of Microsoft TEs, trolls, astroturfers and fanbois.
IF MONO is what its advocates are saying it is (the best thing since sliced bread and safe to use), it would already be in widespread adoption by now. The fact that you can count dependent programs on the fingers of one hand says VOLUMES about how the Linux community as a whole totally distrusts MONO. They are right to hold that distrust.
Java is open source and is MUCH less susceptible to patent attacks. It has CONSIDERABLY MORE tools and applications built with it and for it than MONO does.
Qt4 is GPL’d and has an excellent API and development tools, bar none. It also has excellent apps built by it and tools available for it.
MONO serves no purpose, except to raise the risk of patent attack or of being left in isolation WHEN Microsoft adds extensions to .NET that patents will prevent being added to MONO. This is backwards from Microsoft’s usual attack mode.
The remainder of this comment is well worth reading.
Perhaps the most interesting finding today is this poll. Based on 557 votes in total, 62% don’t trust Microsoft on Mono (at the time of writing). Compare that to 73% who said "No" to Mono (for whatever reason). Might it be safe to infer from this that the majority of people are with Stallman on this subject?
Debian
Looking at distributions more specifically, Stallman referred to Debian as an example. One of the Debian officials wrote an open letter to Stallman. It concludes as follows:
So, Debian didn’t change “the default installation” (whatever that’s supposed to be) but the dependency of a package which is used by a minority of our users who explicitly wishes to install everything GNOME related (which is to the best of my knowledge in accordance with upstream developers who added tomboy to the default GNOME installation, too).
This is already covered by Heise
Debian - Mono is not in our default installation
[...]
In response to the open letter written by free software guru Richard Stallman about the Mono problem, Alexander Schmehl, Debian developer and spokesperson for the GNU/Linux distribution has pointed out that Debian has no plans to include the controversial programming environment in the default GNOME installation. Stallman, who opened his letter with “Debian’s decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy”, had suggested that Debian were including the Mono libraries for anyone using Debian with GNOME.
There are other noteworthy remarks and there are skeptics of Mono inside Debian. How is this for an argument?
I recently came across this very interesting article, written in 1999, which details the tactics used by Microsoft to fight IBM. They obviously saw OS/2 as a threat. Back then, Windows 95 was the trading token. They could have caused IBM a great deal of harm shall they refused to license it to them, but it seems the idea of subjugating IBM was more appealing. This is how Garry Norris (IBM) put it:
“Microsoft repeatedly said we would suffer in terms of prices, terms, conditions and support programs, as long as we were offering competing products.“
“[Microsoft] insisted that IBM sell 300,000 copies of Windows 95 in the first five months or face a 20 percent price increase“
Nice deal, eh? Make your dependancy on Windows 95 stronger, or else we’ll use your existing dependancy on Windows 95 against you. No surprise IBM abandoned the PC market. Are Red Hat and Sun/Oracle set on the same direction?
Why don’t people learn from history? It is an immense loss to ignore all these lessons. Consider what Bill Gates, for example, had to say on this subject.
Ubuntu
Canonical repeatedly insists that it will not change its Mono policy, not even after recommendations from the FSF and SFLC. There is a lot of coverage about it, such as:
- As It Stands, Ubuntu Has No Issues With Mono
- Ubuntu’s Position on Mono Revealed (Update)
- Mono Discussion: Stallman Warns, Ubuntu Dismissive
This comes at a price. From yesterday, for example, there is this:
Our company also takes the potential threat of patents seriously. As such we stand by the position of the SFLC, FSF and RMS in that Mono is just too dangerous.
We are therefore going to look at switching from Ubuntu to Fedora.
The threat is too great to ignore. I wish the UTB would reconsider this as more harm will come to Ubuntu rather than good.
For context, there is more in this address.
Sam Varghese cites the assessment of the SFLC and aligns this with Canonical’s relative apathy.
The Ubuntu technical board has announced that it sees no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting applications to be included in the default set included in the GNU/Linux distribution.
[...]
The Software Freedom Law Centre, which provides “legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software” has a diametrically different view.
Following the statement made by Free Software Foundation chief Richard M. Stallman against Debian’s inclusion of Mono as a default, SFLC technology director, Bradley Kuhn , has written an essay, backing Stallman’s view about it being better to avoid a language like C#.
And to conclude, popular blogger devnet writes about Ubuntu’s decision: “I think this is pretty bold…they’re inviting someone to throw the first stone so to speak.
“I’m with Stallman on this one….better safe than sorry.” █
“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”
–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 8.5/10 (28 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Database, Europe, FOSS, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Open XML, Windows at 4:34 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft demonstrates that non-Free software is simply incapable of handling mission-critical tasks like GNU/Linux does (in Wall Street for example)
BACKED by roughly 20 references, we have already written quite extensively about the recurring issues at the LSE (the stock market, not the school). It is considered to be Microsoft’s poster child that they brag about in commercials all over their Web site. By some people’s assessment, this is considered the case study for Microsoft, never mind the excessive redundancy (cost) and poor track record.
Well, guess what?
The LSE is calling it quits and dumping the platform.
What an unbelievable PR disaster. IDG has the details:
London Stock Exchange reportedly to dump £40m platform
[...]
Dropping TradElect would be a dramatic about-face for the exchange, which had heavily promoted its ability to rival newer, dedicated electronic exchanges, and plumbed millions of pounds into doing so. It runs on HP ProLiant Servers and Microsoft .Net and SQL Server 2000 systems, and within a Cisco network architecture.
How will Microsoft respond to this PR gaffe, which was probably an expected blunder? Analogous systems running GNU/Linux are true success stories.
In a similar vein, now that the UK abandons this system, who can ever rely on proprietary formats like OOXML, for example? That too will be at risk if Glyn Moody gets his way. He is rallying for support at the moment.
Next week, I’m taking part in a debate with a Microsoft representative about the passage of the OOXML file format through the ISO process last year. Since said Microsoftie can draw on the not inconsiderable resources of his organisation to provide him with a little back-up, I thought I’d try to even the odds by putting out a call for help to the unmatched resource that is the Linux Journal community. Here’s the background to the meeting, and the kind of info I hope people might be able to provide.
Not surprisingly, the meeting is neither for my nor Microsoft’s benefit, but for that of Richard Steel, who is CIO of the London Borough of Newham. Those with good memories may recall that back in 2003 it looked like Newham was going to switch to open source, in what could have been a real breakthrough for free software in the UK, but that it then changed its mind and signed a long-term - and secret - deal with Microsoft. Winning Newham was so important to Microsoft that it helped set up a competitive trial…
The Newham situation is one that we wrote about in:
Indeed, it is rather ugly. Newham’s people are hopefully paying attention to the significant news from LSE. It is also in London. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 9.3/10 (13 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, FOSS, GNU/Linux, Marketing, Microsoft, Windows at 4:40 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft is giving awards to marketing people who help its fight against GNU/Linux (and Free software in general)
FOR the uninitiated, learn how Microsoft trains its evangelists to crash competitors' events by attending them and stealing the thunder. This is not a side-effect but an actual intention which Microsoft employees are trained to adhere to.
Having just taken a second look at the Open Malaysia blog, the MSCOSCONF entry which we wrote about at the beginning of the month appears to be ‘decorated’ with new comments. Nasrul, who was the winner of the maligned ‘LAMP2WIMP’ contest (push GNU/Linux software towards Windows) is attacking the Malaysian FOSS proponents. His rude attacks are in Malay, but the answers are mostly in English, which helps the international crowd understand what is happening.
Being a winner of the Microsoft contest, he may deem it necessary to defend Microsoft. He is not a FOSS guy, but mainly a marketeer. See some of the comments, e.g.:
naah, I dont envy that advertisement. It was of no use for me. It was your facial expression and tone change after the people in the secretariat room (we) stated the advertisement was too large for the screenshot for the launch was what I see as something need to be fixed.
[...]
Free
its not free as in free price
its free as in Freedom
Open
its not just about opening up your source code
its also about the culture of Openness
[...]
Nasrul,
It is interesting that you are criticising our actions as FOSS proponents, when your comments itself certainly gives a bad impression to all the other LAMP2WIMP winners. Are all the winners of Microsoft’s money so hell bent in attacking FOSS people? I hope not. I really hope that you are the only anomaly. So lets try to fix that.
Can you state exactly what I criticized which has gotten you so riled up? As far as I can see, the above blog post on “the cognitive dissonance within MDeC” is a fair representation of the current state of events. I elaborated in the post to provide constructive corrections for MDeC and the communities to take in the future, so as to be more consistent with the FOSS message.
After your first comment, I tried to get in touch with you via Facebook, your favourite Social Networking platform, so as to take this issue offline. However you did not respond privately but instead preferred to engage in the name calling and petty personal attacks online. If thats the image you want to project for yourself, by all means, keep going. We’ll just sit back and enjoy the show.
So Nasrul, can you please tune down your vitriol? You are hurting your standing in the community more than you realise.
If you intend to contribute to the community, please realise that you need to thicken your skin with regards to taking constructive criticisms. You, like what I went through, will get alot of it. You should know by now that geeks like us are more direct and blunt with our messages.
We arent smooth tongued salesmen ala experienced marketeers, who have are thick in skin for self promotion even at the most inappropriate occasions, yet thin in skin when it comes to self criticisms.
Read my article again. I “spat” out my thoughts, but it was to heal the wounds [0 : follow the link; your favourite word, "licking," is involved too].
I will be happy to report to Microsoft that their Marketing monies in sponsoring their brilliant LAMP2WIMP competition has worked beyond their wildest dreams; Their investment has created some really fanatical anti-FOSS marketeers from within. So unless you want to remain a testament to their strategy, do us all a favour and educate yourself in what really FOSS means, and not be a tool for others.
Remember: Free as in Freedom.
The following response ought to explain who the “winner” of this Microsoft competition really is:
I am surprised, as an expert in Facebook marketing (after all, you wrote a whole book on it) that you could leave your Inbox so poorly maintained. Perhaps you could add that as the 12th Mistakes you can do in Facebook Marketing: [ http://www.rahsiapemasaranfacebook.com/buku/ - Bonus Tambahan ] : Prune your Inbox to Catch that Important Sale!
So besides that, I guess you missed the tweet I sent you at 2:25pm, Fri 27th June 2009 as well, reminding you that I sent a FB message?
http://twitter.com/yoonkit/statuses/2356075761
“@nasrulrpfb tone down the vitriol, dude. You are making yourself look lame #osdcmy you may take it offline if u like, if FB’d u 3 days ago.”
And yet you continued to comment on this public forum at 9pm later that day. As a PAKAR in viral marketing, I would expect you to handle your online communication logistics better.
So for those who keep pleading us to keep this private (Kage and Rafe), I let the evidence show that I gave him ample opportunity to do so. Nasrul, you obviously thought that you had to have your say, and I am not denying you that right. How you want to proceed is entirely up to you.
You asked, what is my purpose to be involved in the FOSS community? I dunno. I could tell you my history with regards to FOSS, but I believe you are not interested in it. After all your response was dripping with sarcasm, so I wont waste both our times.
[...]
Just how many people is Microsoft hiring to attack GNU/Linux under the disguise of "open source"? It’s getting shallow enough to see through. █
“There’s no company called Linux, there’s barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it’s free.”
–Steve Ballmer
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 8.2/10 (15 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 3:31 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New signs lead back to Microsoft (not just Novell)
IN recent posts [1, 2, 3, 4] about Richard Stallman's statement on Mono, we saw that resistance to it mostly comes from Mono developers, Novell, Microsoft and other such stake holders. We have already seen the FSF and the SFLC putting their weight behind Stallman’s statement and now there is this from the FSFE (Adriaan de Groot from the board of directors of KDE e.V.):
There have been two posts about C# and mono on PlanetKDE this week (e.g. Richard and Andreas). The comments on Andreas’ entry are quite cogent, as are those replying to Richard, but it deserves a wider audience. As far as asking RMS at Gran Canaria this weekend, it’s worth a shot if you abstract the question away from specifically-C# and specifically-mono.
[...]
This isn’t to say there’s not other submarines in the water. We don’t know. Maybe we should. The known submarine should be treated with caution. And the side of caution is to treat C# as a non-Free platform to be avoided.
Mono is a win to Windows [1, 2, 3] and it is also helping Novell, which owns Mono and has exclusivity over it (including perceived ‘protection’ from Microsoft patent assaults that target Mono). This is explicit in the Novell/Microsoft agreement. As Stefano Forenza puts it, there is “pressure Novell and Microsoft.”
Pressure Novell and Microsoft (as some of you work in both the companies) to change the agreement to look like this:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Is that easy. Everybody wins. Even Microsoft.
Just look what they are doing. At Novell, there is now promotion of a new conference called Monospace. Details of the registrar are “protected”, so it is hard to know who initiated the Web site, but Miguel shows that it’s probably Scott Bellware, whose blog says: “I am a recipient of Microsoft’s Most Valuable Professional award.” As for the conference he seemingly sets up for Mono, its description is: “Monospace is the conference that teaches .NET software developers and organizations how to use the Mono framework to leverage investments in .NET skills on a broader array of platforms where business opportunity awaits.”
Microsoft staff may openly say "Fuck you, Richard Stallman", but there are rebuttals to this disgraceful behaviour. Stallman was being polite and rational.
Does anyone still doubt Microsoft’s involvement in Mono? Some people in the Mono team itself are directly on Microsoft’s payroll (not just via Novell). Had Mono been beneficial to GNU/Linux, would Microsoft really help it? Mono is a bridge leading to Microsoft, not from Microsoft. There is even evidence. █
“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
Addendum: the gentleman who insulted Stallman has expressed regret about it and the statements should not be attributed to Microsoft.
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 8.8/10 (16 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Security, UNIX, Windows at 2:14 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Janet Napolitano from Microsoft speaks on behalf of the DHS about the effect of Windows zombies
A couple of weeks ago we warned about the possibility that the US security czar will be a Microsoft employee. This is alarming because the new DHS secretary is a Microsoft employee (correction: that would be Phil Reitinger entering the DHS, coming from Microsoft) who has just changed jobs [1, 2]. This was enabled under pressure from the BSA, a Microsoft front. Essentially, they installed more of Microsoft DNA inside the government.
Well, this Microsoft employee the secretary is now speaking on behalf of the DHS where she warns about “cyber threat”, probably Windows botnets.
The issue of cyber security is of “great concern” to the US, the nation’s homeland security secretary has said.
Janet Napolitano told the BBC that protecting against virtual attacks was something the US was “moving forward on with great alacrity”.
“Virtual attacks” must refer to DDOS. So, she must be aware of the simple observation that hundreds of millions of Windows PCs out there are zombies. Will she recommend migrating to the more seucre UNIX/Linux? That would be a betrayal of her Reitinger’s colleagues at Microsoft. And either way, this would not block botnets in other countries. They can still hammer on any target at the behest of the botmaster.
Last week we wrote about Windows zombies costing the economy hundreds of billions per year, accroding to estimates of the cost of SPAM alone. This is the product of Windows botnets. Glyn Moody uses some of the available figures to write about “the huge cost of Microsoft software” (to its surroundings, collectively).
Yesterday I wrote about a report from ACT that brought up the issue of TCO for free software.
As I pointed out there, it’s old news that free software has costs; but what is more interesting is the fact that fans of the proprietary world always fail to point out the huge hidden costs of using poorly-written closed-source software. Here’s a great demonstration of my point:
The `Conficker worm’ caused chaos when it hit Manchester town hall in February. Now we can reveal the bug cost the council more than £43,000 in `lost’ bus lane fines.
The computer problems meant 1,609 tickets could not be issued within the 28-day legal limit - rendering them useless.
In total, the Conficker worm cost taxpayers in Manchester nearly £1.5m, the M.E.N has learned.
A £1.2m bill in the IT department, including £600,000 getting ‘consultancy support’ to fix the problems, which including drafting in experts from Microsoft;
£178,000 in extra staffing costs across the town hall – including £169,000 going to clear up a backlog of benefits claims and council tax bills;
Compensation payments due to delays in processing benefit claims.
A few things to note here.
Watch how this article gets flooded by “perception management” [1, 2] in the comments. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 7.9/10 (13 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.30.09
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Law, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, TomTom, Ubuntu at 4:04 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: More opposition to Mono surfaces, detailed explanations offered
AS we pointed out over the weekend [1, 2], the SFLC and FSF are in alignment with Richard Stallman's views on Mono and so are many others. But Bradley Kuhn has just made it more official with a long essay at the SFLC’s Web site. It’s a recommended read.
In an essay last Friday entitled Why free software shouldn’t depend on Mono or C#, RMS argued a key point that I agree with: the software freedom community should minimize its use of programming language infrastructure that comes primarily from anti-software-freedom companies, notwithstanding FaiF (Free as in Freedom) implementations. I’ve been thinking about an extension of that argument: that language infrastructure created in a community process is likely more resilient against attacks from proprietary software companies.
Here is another new perspective:
I think it is interesting that he thinks that it is the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” that is the camp that offers the greatest threat to Microsoft. I can understand why some may think that this is true since this camp is creating flashy and very useful products and features that increase the appeal of Linux. However, mono is not the only tool that the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” has at its disposal. Many view the use of the Qt toolkit as a better alternative, and one that does not have the risk associated with mono. Furthermore, I do not agree with the thought that “‘best technology’ Linux camp” is the one that Microsoft feels most threatened by. I think Microsoft is only threatened by the combination of both camps.
I view mono as a distraction for FOSS developers. Yes, there are some practical advantages in its use, but there are a lot of questions surrounding it. It has the potential of dividing the two mayor camps of Linux contributors. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this controversy.
Since Nokia’s Qt toolkit is mentioned above, here is what KDE developers say on the subject (mind the good comments) and here is what Jack Wallen thinks about Novell’s role.
If Microsoft is threatening patents against .NET, it would seem to me that the Novell/Microsoft relationship didn’t really work out all that well. And now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made? Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back again and again and again?
The Register on the lessons to be learned from TomTom:
Although Stallman frequently speaks about the dangers of software patents on open-source, trust for Microsoft has run particularly thin recently because of the company’s legal attack on TomTom over a FAT patent dispute.
Stallman urged the community to instead distribute and recommend non-C# applications whenever possible to avoid Redmond lawyers from being able to disable major OS functions on a whim.
Microsoft neither retracted nor backed its accusations against Linux. Horacio Gutierrez from Microsoft said about Linux that “there is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed.” He named not even a single one, but Mono is an easy target and also a very unique one.
GNU/Linux users do not want Mono. Well, maybe with the exception of SUSE and Canonical, whose desktop engineering manager comes from Microsoft. In response to the many discussions stemming from Stallman’s essay, Canonical has published yet another statement about Mono.
The Ubuntu Technical Board has been asked for a position statement on the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, by applications in Ubuntu.
These applications, as well as the Mono stack, were proposed for inclusion like any other application and underwent the same review process that all new applications and platforms undergo before being accepted into the archive.
With specific regard to the default installed application set, applications have been reviewed and compared against each other on merit and features. These often take place during the Ubuntu Developer Summits, most recently over the default media player.
For those who prefer Ubuntu (like myself), here is a handy new guide: “How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu” █
What Microsoft has
What Microsoft wants
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 7.1/10 (22 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Database, Deception, FUD, Fraud, GNU/Linux, IBM, Marketing, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN, UNIX at 3:34 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s advertising is still a scam and should be dealt with appropriately
EARLIER THIS MONTH we wrote about Microsoft coming under threat of lawsuits due to these very same practices. The victim of benchmark fraud was IBM at the time and this time it is Oracle.
One of our readers got us a scan of the advert (see above). “It’s kinda small,” he says, “but you might find it interesting.” Here is the benchmark the advert is mentioning. To quote: “New results from SAP show that on similarly configured systems, SQL Server 2000 running on Windows Server 2003 outperformed Oracle 9i running on HP-UX. The highest Fully Processed Line Items Per hour, 178,000, has SAP certification number 2005017, and the highest 4-way Oracle result in this benchmark is 88,670, with SAP certification number 2004030.”
“Such benchmark fraud should be reported to the ASA for deceptive marketing.”They neglect to say that MSSQL server is 8 cores, whereas the Oracle server is 4 cores. Oiaohm adds that “HP-UX has the lowest benchmarks with Oracle. Solaris and Linux outscore it. Basically, Microsoft cheats on benchmarks at every chance. [...] Also thinking Oracle also runs on Windows. Benchmark was very incomplete. [...] Also lower clock speed processors.”
“It’s a really stacked config,” adds the person who sent us this information. “Even with it not being HPUX, you are looking at 4 dual-core Opterons versus 4 single-core Itanium2 processors. Quite a big speed difference too.”
To conclude, he adds: “The point was to show MSSQL was faster than Oracle. They want you to buy their database, not just the OS. It’s just one more effort on Microsoft’s part to spin bad data into a convincing glossy blurb to appeal to the C-levels I don’t mind if they do a fair comparison and win, but this kind of stuff just hurts their credibility.”
Such benchmark fraud should be reported to the ASA for deceptive marketing. This has happened before and the same should be done about “<vendor> recommends Vista” [1, 2] and other marketing schemes, maybe even “it’s better with Windows” [1, 2].
Microsoft keeps wondering why it is not liked in IT circles. It is not because “it’s a big company.” █
“Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one. Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one.”
–Windows platform manager, Microsoft South Africa
Reference: Outrage at Microsoft’s independent, yet sponsored NT 4.0/Linux research
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 9.3/10 (12 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.29.09
Posted in FOSS, FUD, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft at 7:12 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Assorted brow-raising items in the news
There has been something fishy about LinuxInsider ever since ECT took over (mentioned here). This is actually pointed out by other independent observers as well because the whole news network gives the impression that GNU/Linux is problematic, either because it serves the advertisers better or because the editor was not even a GNU/Linux user until some time ago (true story). Last week it was claimed that an article sought to give the impression that Mono opposition is irrational and hateful and this week we find an article starts with phrases like “Conspiracy Theories” in the headline (we wrote about this dismissive term before).
It basically seeks to dismiss Groklaw's fundamental claims that Microsoft worked behind the scenes to derail GNU/Linux. Groklaw may have not offered the piles of evidence that we have, but it does put forth a claim which is obvious to those who have been following the saga closely enough.
Groklaw’s reaction: “Mystery solved. Totally blatant… next time you hear Microsoft bragging that people *prefer* their software to Linux on netbooks, you’ll know better. If they really believed that, they’d let the market speak, on a level playing field.”
To discredit Groklaw, the author uses comments from people with names like “hairyfeet” and “drinkypoo”. And since Microsoft has PR folks patrolling Slashdot, to just pick arbitrary quotes like this would be as careless as discrediting valid convictions based on gut feeling or guesswork. To support this whole storyline, the author is again quoting “M$” from the other side, thus discrediting this whole side of the debate. Maybe it is not intentional, but either way, the outcome seems biased.
Elsewhere on the Web, in a news site that we mentioned earlier for its propagation of Microsoft studies, routine guest posts from the Microsoft-funded Rob Enderle (LinuxInsider/ECT allows him to publish too), and other patterns of obvious bias suddenly comes this Google-hostile article, which gently tries to put the “evil” label on Google. Watch who is cited:
Consumer Watchdog managed to get hold of the slides that Google is touting around earlier this month, and it’s clear that Google wants us all to think that it’s just a minnow compared to giants like Microsoft and IBM. Interestingly, it doesn’t include Intel in the figures - Paul Otellini, Intel’s CEO is on Google’s board.
We wrote about Consumer Watchdog last month [1, 2]. It hardly gets more suspicious than this and the Microsoft advertisements do not contribute to confidence in the publication’s motives, either.
Yesterday we wrote about ACT’s report, which was the latest Microsoft-commissioned attack on Free software. IDG gave this some obedient coverage, but Glyn Moody at the UK section of IDG tried adding balance by reminding people what ACT really is.
There you have it: that well-known friend of teensy-weensy companies everywhere, Microsoft, is a “sponsor” of ACT. That would probably explain the fact that ACT’s position, notably in Europe, has been resolutely pro-Microsoft, and anti everything that is anti-Microsoft.
ACT was created to serve as a Microsoft front amid antitrust trouble, just after ATL had been exposed for participating in “letter from dead people” and engaging in corrupt tactics. Jonathan Zuck was behind both fronts. More information about ACT we have already accumulated in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], so it would be wasteful to repeat it.
Last but not least, watch how one Microsoft-funded site (TechFlash) promotes another (MSNBC).
Zumobi, a Microsoft spin out, has been on a roll lately with a number of high-profile apps for media brands and retailers. It also recently unveiled the iPhone app for the Today show, also a property of NBC.
It all stays in the family. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 9.0/10 (10 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries
