Be aware that, for quite a long time, certain people were unable to link to BoycottNovell.com because their employer does not permit this. The same goes for backward citations and talkbacks/comments. I have actually seen comments being deleted from ZDNet because they contained a link to BoycottNovell.com. Those who are posting such comments had no affiliation with us at all. Likewise, sites such ZDNet refuse to let our trackbacks be shown. Ever!

Yesterday, in C|Net, Bruce Lowry (of Novell) threw some mud in our face as well. He criticised Matt Asay for linking to us and using us as an information source. If that is the case, then apparently, Novell tries to impose some type of a mental blacklist/embargo in the same way that SCO had Groklaw characterised as an anti-SCO site, which had it ignored by editors for years. They might try to justify and portray this as slander-for-slander. Be aware that Novell has its reasons to worry because we are among the top search results for "novell" (and still climbing). Many people who are looking for information about Novell products end up in our Web site, based on our logs.

"Does Novell have some sort of moral shield which Microsoft does not have?"Is Novell doing itself justice? Is it embracing a book-burning approach? I receive E-mails from people who wish to link to this site, but cannot. Returning to Groklaw as an example, amid the rulings that are extremely damaging to SCO (they lied from the very start), who is eating humble pie? Who was right all along? In CNN, some of the slander carries on. SCO is said to have received "Linux-mob justice" (that was in yesterday's 'news'). InformationWeek, one of the backers of SCO's side, has had 'placements' put to say that PJ is funded by IBM. It was a lie. Isn't it truly terrible? That libel is still out there on the Web, so people can get confused. SCO used those media 'placement' to serve PJ with some legal harassment.

Maybe it's matter of perspective, but don't you find it dangerous that such suppression of speech exists? People are forbidden from expression of views and sharing of an analysis. A view that deviates from what is preferred by the media is seen as controversial and therefore ignored.

So, if there were sites to be named and shamed for censorship, ZDNet would be one of them. There are no obscenities, hate, or racism involved. It is a matter of a company being criticised, yet you do not see criticisms of Microsoft being broadly or selectively censored. Does Novell have some sort of moral shield which Microsoft does not have? If so, it should not. Novell is now working with a convicted monopoly abuser, it has betrayed the GPL, it has 'backstabbed' many developers, and it fueled FUD along with Microsoft. Novell deserves to join the ranks of those whose criticism is seen as acceptable.

As the "About" page states, this is not a hate site. We explore the truth. Why should truth be ignored?