Summary: The status of Windows XP as a platform Microsoft cares about is waning
Microsoft already neglects Windows XP when it comes to security. Maybe they are running out of developers who are familiar with the code or maybe they just can’t be bothered obeying their promises of long-term support. Based on the following new story, Microsoft is starting to neglect non-Vista (including Vista 7) versions of Windows, perhaps pushing for unnecessary "upgrades" that way.
Microsoft explains why the upcoming Office 2010 will not support Windows XP 64-bit nor Windows Server 2003.
Gone so soon. 64-bit is still not a priority at Microsoft, either. Existing users of XP are advised to try GNU/Linux, which would not require new hardware. █
“Microsoft, like much of the IT industry, was caught off-guard by the rapid rise of the netbook category, but moved quickly to offer a netbook-specific version of XP Home to stem the tide of Linux on netbooks.”
Send this to a friend
Microsoft Evangelicals take over the debate
Summary: Microsoft-funded people are still being quoted by the press (regarding Microsoft) and even described as “analysts”
YESTERDAY we mentioned Rob Enderle in reference to articles that quote Microsoft pundits and call them “analysts”.
Well, some analysts might still have some integrity, for example those who just state the obvious:
A Microsoft official has come out and said that Windows Mobile 7 is coming in late 2010. At the same time, an analyst says that it’s already game over for Microsoft.
Windows Mobile is a dead end and it doesn’t take an “analyst” to see that. Regarding the phones arena, former Microsoft employee (“evangelist”) Gartenberg [1, 2] is quoted as an “analyst” despite being nothing less than a shill of Microsoft; as he has proven for years.
Analyst claims Apple is moving towards Microsoft
According to Michael Gartenberg, a vice president at Interpret, the Bing app is a wise move on Microsoft’s part because of the popularity of the Iphone and the importance of mobile search and mobile location-based devices.
This must be a joke. It’s like quoting Richard Stallman as an “analyst” regarding OpenMoko.
There is actually more of the same in today’s news. Here is an article that relies on Microsoft’s paid partners Nielsen and comScore, which we wrote about in:
It does not say anything in the article to emphasise that it’s US-only and it does not say a thing about conflicts of interests, either. How typical. Microsoft has only about 3% in terms of market share because its “Bing” experiment has pretty much failed. █
“Analysts sell out – that’s their business model…”
–Microsoft, internal document
Send this to a friend
Summary: Professor Eben Moglen responds to disinformation from Novell’s Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier, who was sent to London by Novell’s PR team in order to speak to journalists
“DOWNHILL” is where Novell is going, but even on its way down to the bottom Novell resorts to lying and revisionism. Brockmeier’s lies about Eben Moglen's stance are finally being refuted and rebutted by Moglen himself.
In a short exchange with ITWire, Moglen has some strong words to share:
OpenSUSE’s Brockmeier caught out over Moglen claim
OpenSUSE community manager Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier has been caught out spreading misinformation about the patent deal that Microsoft signed with his employer, Novell, a little over three years ago.
During a recent tour of Europe, Brockmeier gave an interview to eWeek Europe to spruik his company’s position and what he claimed it had gained from the patent licensing deal over the three years since it was signed.
He was quoted by Peter Judge of eWeek as saying: “Even Eben Moglen [Columbia law professor and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center] approved of the deal and said it was compliant with the GPLv2 licence agreement.”
Such a claim is surprising considering that Moglen is well-known as a co-author of the GPLv3 which introduced a clause that would prevent such deals from happening in the future.
Contacted by iTWire, Moglen said he was surprised by the claim. “I *did* say the deal didn’t violate GPLv2 section 7,” he said.
This, however, is not surprising as many people knew that, legally, the GPLv2 did not prohibit the deal. However, many people at the time felt that it did violate the spirit of the licence. Prominent free software developer Jeremy Allison quit Novell in disgust over the deal.
Moglen, who is highly respected both for his academic scholarship and his contributions to free software, was surprised that he had been painted as someone who had approved of the deal.
“I *disapproved* of the deal, quite firmly; there is some rather popular video of me on the web explaining why, in relation to Microsoft’s annual ‘Be Very Afraid’ tours,” he said.
While some who read the article have contested these claims in comments at the end of the piece, Brockmeier has offered no comment.
The Source was probably the first Web site to properly expose Brockmeier for his lies. In reference to the above it adds:
Everyone who knows anything about the Microsoft/Novell deal – among whom I assume Mr. Brockmeier is counted – understand this position. The entire “trick” that permitted the deal was a this loophole of letter-compliance but spirit-violation under the GPLv2 which was specifically closed in the GPLv3.
And when I say specifically, I mean the Microsoft/Novell deal was listed by name.
Why the pretense that someone acknowledging Novell pulled a fine-print fast one and got away with it is equal to approval and endoresement? I understand the desire to spin a shameful collaboration of betrayal and discrimination on Novell’s part, but why try to use the name and reputation of someone who publicly condemns you? They will surely correct your gross distortions, and then where are you? (Still on Novell’s payroll! <rimshot>)
Yes, he is being paid to say such nonsense. Upton Sinclair once said, “It’s hard get a man to understand something, when he’s being paid not to understand it.”
Here is a new interview with Brockmeier, where he is asked about many issues including Mono:
HO [Heise/H Online]: Novell appears to have set itself high hopes for Mono and you say that this is the first commercial development tool for the rapid creation of .NET applications for Linux, Unix and Mac OS X within Visual Studio. Is it really the ‘first’ tool of this kind and what do you think will appeal most to developers about its form and function?
JB [Joe Brockmeier]: As far as I know, it is the first tool of its kind. But I’m not the ‘Mono guy’, so I don’t spend much so time with it – but I would say that the most appealing thing about the tool is what you’ve emphasised in the question: that it allows rapid development of cross-platform .NET applications. Giving developers an opportunity to easily target cross-platform development with a language they’re already familiar with is a big incentive.
Later on we will write a long post about the latest of the Mono folly.
Georg Greve passes on the words of the FSFE (which he founded): “EC’s Microsoft browser settlement better than expected, but interoperability promises utterly useless…”
This is a subject that we covered yesterday, having previously explained that Microsoft attacks Free software as commercial software using the so-called “interoperability promise”. Groklaw has just analysed this too and made a comparison to the Novell/Microsoft deal:
Microsoft tries this trick every time. Same thing with the Microsoft-Novell patent pledge, if you recall. It means the same thing here, that you are not covered unless you are not a commercial competitor of Microsoft. So Linus in his bedroom would be covered, but once people actually started to use Linux to the benefit of the world’s economy, the deal is off? Then what happens? Is the old code still covered? How is it interoperability if your main competition is excluded from interoperability? My guess is Microsoft means for you to have to pay for a patent license, if you are commercial, judging by Jason Matusow’s comment about similar language in the Novell deal:
The offer not to sue open source software developers for patent infringement might sound philanthropic, but it has been dismissed from various quarters as “divisive” and “worse than useless”.
Earlier this week the Samba development team urged Novell to rethink its agreement with Microsoft as it favored non-commercial developers or those contributing to Novell’s openSUSE project over contributors to other commercial open source projects.
Meanwhile the Software Freedom Law Center said the offer was “worse than useless” and was not to be relied upon.
While Matusow’s request for input from the open source community shows that the company is open to criticism, it appears it will not be changing its position on commercial open source developers.
“Our design goal is to get language in place that allows individual developers to keep developing. We are not interested in providing carte blanche clearance on patents to any commercial activity – that is a separate discussion to be had on a per-instance basis,” he wrote.
But the GPL forbids paying for a patent license, so it’s a cute trick to keep GPL code, and that includes Linux, out in the cold, unable to interoperate.
Microsoft is modeling a deal with the EU in a similar fashion to that which it signed with Novell. It is surprising that the FSFE has been as polite as it is about it. █
“People that use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us.”
Send this to a friend
Summary: Botnets resulting from Microsoft’s poor coding (e.g. Conficker) are ruining the Internet for everyone, especially in places where the infrastructure is limited to begin with
EARLIER this month we wrote about Germany paying Microsoft “tax” no matter what operating system it uses. That “tax” is not for licences of products however; it is a “tax” that goes towards undoing the damages caused by Windows malware (such as Conficker, from which Microsoft is profiteering).
Here is some interesting new research:
The infamous Conficker worm has disproportionally affected computer systems in the developing world, according to new research.
Despite high profile infection at the UK’s Ministry of Defence and a series of British hospitals, to cite just a few examples, Conficker has proportionally affected systems in Africa and south America far more. Developing nations have become “malware ghettos”, stats from Shadowserver suggest.
When hundreds of millions of Windows PCs are infected with malware, this should not be surprising. Nations like Nicaragua, Argentina [1, 2] and Brazil [1, 2] will hopefully move to Free software quickly and fully, despite Microsoft’s attack on these moves. Microsoft also works overtime to suppress Free software adoption in Africa [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. █
Send this to a friend
“Gates has created a huge blood-buying operation that only cares about money, not about people.”
–AIDS organisation manager in China, December 2009 (New York Times)
Summary: The bad behaviour of the Gates Foundation (the one it does not let the mainstream press talk about) leads to more backlash
A CHINESE blogger has just called for a boycott against the Gates Foundation (the above title is a direct quote). This morning we mentioned Monsanto for its market abuses, which the Gates Foundation is funding and actively promoting (see references at the bottom of this post). As the quote at the top shows, agriculture/gene patents are only part of the problem because the Gates Foundation also pumps a lot of money into pharmaceutical/medical patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] (even surgeries are now subjected to patents).
The Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) has just issued the following statement regarding AIDS patent pools.
A number of NGOs have recently raised important criticisms about the patent pool and the process, and as the pool moves forward it is important to expand the transparency of the patent pool initiative, and to ensure that all patient and public health groups, generic drug producers, academic experts, governments and other concerned about, interested in and impacted by the pool will have the effective opportunity to review, comment and influence outcomes, including the many policy decisions will be made in the next 12 months.
The short story is that patents are standing in the way of people whose health problems would otherwise be treated. If only the rich are able to afford these cures/medicines, then the drugs are more profitable to shareholders; they fear a devaluation of vital drugs more than they fear death of people whose life can trivially be saved.
Regarding Monsanto, here is another report (among many).
Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.’s business practices reveal how the world’s biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
By eliminating competition Monsanto is hoping to set the price. It’s just like Microsoft, maybe even worse. Either way, Monsanto’s public promotion and funding comes from Bill Gates, who also funds the world's biggest patent troll. Just because he gives money away doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The Los Angeles Times did a whole exposé about the subject of where money actually goes. █
- With Microsoft Monopoly in Check, Bill Gates Proceeds to Creating More Monopolies
- Gates-Backed Company Accused of Monopoly Abuse and Investigated
- How the Gates Foundation Privatises Africa
- Reader’s Article: The Gates Foundation and Genetically-Modified Foods
- Monsanto: The Microsoft of Food
- Seeds of Doubt in Bill Gates Investments
- Gates Foundation Accused of Faking/Fabricating Data to Advance Political Goals
- More Dubious Practices from the Gates Foundation
- Video Transcript of Vandana Shiva on Insane Patents
- Explanation of What Bill Gates’ Patent Investments Do to Developing World
- Black Friday Film: What the Bill Gates-Backed Monsanto Does to Animals, Farmers, Food, and Patent Systems
- Gates Foundation Looking to Destroy Kenya with Intellectual Monopolies
- Young Napoleon Comes to Africa and Told Off
- Bill Gates Takes His GMO Patent Investments/Experiments to India
- Gates/Microsoft Tax Dodge and Agriculture Monopoly Revisited
- Gates Foundation Funds Literature Supportive of Its Objectives
- Bill Gates Tightens Information/Agriculture Grip on Africa by Funding African Journalists, Expanding to India
- Beyond the ‘Public Relations’
‘“Other than Bill Gates, I don’t know of any high tech CEO that sits down to review the company’s IP portfolio” —Marshall Phelps
Send this to a friend
Summary: Bad news for Microsoft (and particularly for Vista 7) in Turkey as OEM stranglehold gets cracked
BACK in April we wrote about Microsoft's attack on GNU/Linux in Turkey. A reader of ours (potentially from Turkey) has enthusiastically mailed us with this new information about a major development:
It’s a good day for free software. Why? Because Microsoft will no more be able to force Windows pre-installed PC’s onto Turkish citizens.
Lawyer Nihat Karslı -who is the president of Pardus Users Group (Pardus Kullanıcıları Derneği) and also a member of Linux Users Group- filed a lawsuit against Windows pre-installed PC’s. Consumer Court of Ankara (Ankara 1. Tüketici Mahkemesi) ruled for Karslı and banned the forced sales of Windows operating system with a new PC. We’ll see if this ruling will be taken seriously by PC stores.
This is a step in the right direction. Microsoft Windows is a very user-hostile operating system; nobody should be required to buy a Vista- or Vista 7-saddled PC.
Another reader, Marti, has tried Vista 7 and shared the following experiences, which we thought would be worth publishing here.
Vista 7 is is not only insecure it is malfunctioning as well. It doesn’t support Microsoft’s own proprietary implementation of SMB/CFIS, called “NetBUI”.
It is next to impossible to connect to “Windows shares” that use SAMBA or previous versions of NetBUI, like Windows XP.
In Windows 7 “Windows shares” are implemented in “The Home group” which is incompatible with its predecessors.
IMHO Windows 7 is the most user hostile OS ever. It is extremely complicated, even for a seasoned “Windows Tweaker”.
I am not kidding, it is even worst than Vista.
Wireless Internet is also very problematic.
This brings me to the conclusion that networking in general is a mess in Windows 7.
It is crystal clear: Windows 7 is Vista reloaded with a new paintjob and a few distractions (screwed up networking) all for the single purpose of Vendor Lockin(tm), making its predecessor (Windows XP) and interaction with competitive technologies (GNU/Linux etc.) next to impossible.
On top of that, the so called speed of Windows 7 as advocated by the Munchkins is fully made out of cloth.
Windows 7: the ultimate piece of junk!
I installed the RC1 build 7100, only to confront the Munchkins with facts. My conclusion is, that it’s not worth a single penny. It’s garbage, junk, trash.
Even my ex-lover “Julian” – a Microsoft Victim pur sang – agrees with me, regarding Windows 7.
My conscience requires me to spread the truth about Windows 7 and to warn potential users for wasting their hard earned money on that worthless piece of junk.
It is being reported that GNU/Linux gains in developing nations, new form factors (e.g. sub-notebooks), and emerging markets. Vista 7 cannot stop this. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Microsoft admits guilt without even a challenge and a lawsuit/settlement may come shortly
Microsoft has already attempted to blame someone else after taking the proprietary code from Plurk (without permission). According to this, a lawsuit is likely on its way.
Microsoft Might Still Face Lawsuit from Plurk for Stealing Code
Then Microsoft shut down Juku and apologized. Now, maybe it’s true Microsoft had no idea until then. But if it’s also true that roughly 80 percent of the code was lifted, as Plurk indicates, I think the situation calls for more than “We’re sorry and we won’t do it again.”
Microsoft has pulled down the infringement, just as it did a couple of months ago when it violated the GPL. Microsoft eventually did not get sued for that one.
We prefer not to quote hardliners, so here is what the Microsoft press says. Microsoft Nick wrote about Microsoft apologising, but not everyone who is in Microsoft’s pocket played along those line. Even Microsoft fans/shills are willing to say:
A day after Microsoft admitted that it stole code from Plurk, a rival microblogging site, Microsoft faces the possibility of a lawsuit, and one would certainly be justified. Expect Microsoft to pay through the nose for this one.
Regulators should also pay attention. This is the latest among many Microsoft crimes, which serves as a sign of Microsoft’s corporate culture staying the same as ever. There is hardly a need for a court’s conviction here because Microsoft has already acknowledged it. █
“Microsoft is, I think, fundamentally an evil company.”
–Former Netscape Chairman James H. Clark
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »