THE "ZEMLIN PAC" as I like to call them don't impress me; I don't have a particularly positive view of them, to say the least. They speak about "Linux" and at the same time they don't even use that. They're like meat-eating vegetarians to me. Hypocrites and charlatans. Not even kind or inclusive people. Marketing people -- yes, that's what they are. Throwing lots of X-rated insults at me, then blocking me in Twitter (perhaps not knowing how the Streisand Effect works and how ineffective if not counterproductive such blocks can be).

"They're like meat-eating vegetarians to me."Readers may have noticed that we barely write about them anymore. That's not because there's nothing to write or to show -- there definitely is and it's easier to tackle quickly by microblogging than by preparing more articles. In a sense, they're already "Dead" to us because their own words doom their credibility (or what's left of it).

There's one particular new thing which probably does merit an article (microblogging is not enough).

As some readers pointed out to us, Torvalds is aware of Microsoft's payment to his employer. Lunduke mentioned this earlier this month and maybe others did too. The Linux Foundation doesn't seem to tolerate any Microsoft critics because Microsoft is a client, right? A very big client. The Linux Foundation sold is soul to its opponent. It refuses to acknowledge this.

"The Linux Foundation sold is soul to its opponent. It refuses to acknowledge this."Now, imagine you work for this tax-exempt PR agency; you would sooner or later become a mouthpiece for Microsoft because your employer is paid by Microsoft too. Questioning Microsoft would, in effect, be questioning your client and therefore be a career risk. This is how people get corrupted -- perhaps even subconsciously. Then, when confronted with opposing statements, those people label "nutcases" those who aren't paid by Microsoft. By all means take note of the fact that never even one tweet from the Linux Foundation or its staff is criticising Microsoft, even when Microsoft is suing Linux with patents. This inability to criticise is how you know they're inherently corrupted by money -- or at least gagged by it. But gagging is one thing; it's another thing altogether to fire off this insult: "There are nutcases on YouTube who are now saying that Linus Torvalds doesn't have issues with Microsoft because they indirectly pay his bills. Why is Desktop Linux YouTube/Blogsphere plagued with nutcases? It looks like they feed on their own kind."

Well, he would not wish to comment on who indirectly pays his own bills, too.

"It looks like they feed on their own kind," says someone who works among people fed by Microsoft.

One might even joke -- and still be partly right to suggest -- that the Linux Foundation and its cronies have in effect monetised mockery of Microsoft critics. Pointing out abuses is, to Linux Foundation staff, the thing to be opposed. What do they stand for then?

"One might even joke -- and still be partly right to suggest -- that the Linux Foundation and its cronies have in effect monetised mockery of Microsoft critics."Microsoft used to rely on salaried staff such as Ramji and Hilf for attacking and slandering the FSF while lying about Microsoft's intentions. With payments to the Linux Foundation such roles and functionalities have been 'outsourced' (while the Linux Foundation outsources everything to Microsoft's GitHub).

Jim Zemlin has not tweeted anything for months. We suppose he understands that anything he has to say would not go down too well with the Free software community. By all means speak out, Jim. We want to see where you stand on issues. We want to hear your views. If they work to undermine your credibility, so be it. You did, after all, turn the "Linux" brand into a PR company that literally sells tweets. ⬆