"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches," Microsoft's long-serving CEO Steve Ballmer once said. Not much as changed except pretense (face change).
Satya Ballmer
Summary: Microsoft dumps its proxy (misleadingly named 'Open Tech') and other attacks on Free software persist from the inside, often through so-called 'experts' whose agenda is to sell proprietary software
MICROSOFT'S long-term assault on GNU/Linux is in some ways worse than ever before. Changing Ballmer's face with another is about as effective as swapping Bush for Obama. Things are only getting worse, even if it's branded differently. The attacks on users' rights (DRM, blobs, spying) have exacerbated. It's just not as visible as before (like the infamous "Get the Facts" marketing campaign), it's more subtle or altogether covert.
There are concrete sign of Microsoft's strategy to destroy FOSS from the inside (entryism) not quite succeeding, which leads to a Plan B, like infecting Android with proprietary spyware, controlling GNU/Linux through Azure, etc.
"For Microsoft, "Open Tech" shutting down is somewhat symbolic, even poetic.""So," some people ask, "what's new at the 'new' Microsoft?"
There's nothing new except worsening levels of aggression.
Microsoft's 'Open Tech' proxy is shutting down, anti-Android lawsuits expand (or threats of lawsuits, based on the latest reports from Taiwan), new bribes are reported (e.g. Cyanogen), antitrust by proxy (against Free software) is succeeding... welcome the 'new' Microsoft, the Microsoft that's more aggressive than the Mafia led by Steve Ballmer.
For Microsoft, "Open Tech" shutting down is somewhat symbolic, even poetic. It's almost as though Microsoft gave up pretending to be "Open". The Microsoft "Open Tech" proxy (assimilation strategy) is dead, says Microsoft's Mouth (people have left it for quite some time, even senior people). but Microsoft's Mouth (the booster Mary Jo Foley) released quite a misleading piece which is essentially hogwash and PR, pretending that shutdown is "rejoining", like "reorg" meaning layoffs.
Is there no point keeping this Trojan horse in tact? Is Microsoft not interested in "Open"? Or is there no point pretending anymore? Microsoft has been aggressive against Linux as of late, as we wrote in the following series a month ago:
We also wrote about Microsoft 'Open' Technologies in the following older articles:
Meanwhile, alas, Microsoft is
googlebombing 'Open Source', which helps
fool some politicians. As we put it yesterday,
Microsoft's plot to associate Windows with 'Open Source' is proving effective, despite being just a Big Lie. Shame on IDG for
continuing the googlebombing of "Windows Open Source" in an article by Mac Asay. We are also saddened to see
an article from SoftPedia about
Black Duck, the Microsoft-linked source of FUD (
anti-copyleft). Another publication giving them marketing space is always bad news because it's anti-FOSS really, disguised as pro-FOSS. It is part of
the latest marketing blitz from Black Duck, relying on the so-called "Future of Open Source Survey" [
1,
2,
3], which has been annual propaganda for many years. Why do journalists continue to waste time on this? It's not an analysis, it's just marketing for Black Duck's proprietary software.
Speaking of Black Duck, it recently hired a top executive from Veracode and Chris Wysopal, CTO of Veracode,
continues the FUD over FOSS security (article from yesteday); he does it after Veracode did the "Heartbleed" recall/birthday in the same site a just over a couple of days beforehand (14
th of April), as we noted with concern at the time.
IT Pro Portal seems to be thinking that some Microsoft-connected firm giving a name and logo to a FOSS bug is such a major event that we need to celebrate its anniversaries, too. If they wish to see real security problems, then they should speak about Windows in terminals, ATMs, etc. The new report titled
"New malware program 'Punkey' infecting point-of-sale systems" does not even
call out Windows, almost as if this fact is just irrelevant.
These so-called 'analysts' are -- more often than not, to not risk overgeneralising -- little more than frauds, like so-called 'counter-terrorism experts' whose goal is to scare people (e.g. through the corporate media or parliamentary avenues) in order for them to sell their 'services'.
The 451 Research is now
using some biased yardstick to help generate favourable press for Microsoft, but that's another point and another topic, probably worth raising another day. 451 Research staff always refused to tell me whether Microsoft paid them or not (they answered all my other questions) -- a denial which in itself spoke volumes.
⬆
