10.27.19
Somebody Needs to Explain to the Linux Foundation That GNU/Linux (or Software Freedom) is Not a Religion
Insulting advocates of GNU/Linux is a long tradition at the ‘Super PAC’ of Jim Zemlin
Summary: Long-held beliefs about the employer of Linus Torvalds (and guardian of his trademark) are proven more accurate over time because disdain and ridicule of the long-held beliefs that Software Freedom matters unmask that employer as what it really is (or stands for)
ALONG time ago we wrote about the projection tactics or the boring old smear that caring about computer users is a “religion”. As if it’s illogical and irrational. As if it’s bigoted and may lead to violence (and may therefore need to be stopped or watched closely). We had already seen smears like these in antitrust material. Microsoft, refusing to acknowledge its cult-like behaviour, recklessly accuses others of the same. “Religion” is a weird term to ascribe to/characterise non-religious/atheistic communities, unlike perhaps "cults" (cults do not necessarily have deities).
“Microsoft, refusing to acknowledge its cult-like behaviour, recklessly accuses others of the same.”More than a decade ago we took note of such smears (when failing to discredit the opposition’s argument, compare it to blind faith). Ten years ago we mentioned religion in relation to Mono/.NET, five years ago we said that “Both Apple and Microsoft Compare Their Corporate Causes to Religion“ and “Microsoft Fakes 'Charity' and Uses Religious Groups to Acquire Lock-in in the Public Sector“; last year we said the same about patent maximalism at the management of the European Patent Office (EPO).
When one compares GNU or Linux (or both) to a religion one is in fact participating in — even bolstering — Microsoft’s attack on Software Freedom.
So Microsoft critics and sceptics are "nutcases", GNU/Linux is a “religion”, and everyone who does not agree with the Linux Foundation is just Donald Trump, according to the Linux.com editor who doesn’t even use GNU/Linux (Macs and Windows).
Some people like to take satires of Richard Stallman (e.g. about religion) to actually twist those jokes as seriousness, thus portraying GNU as a “religion”. They’d do anything to demonise people who speak about human rights and Software Freedom.
“As long as Zemlin protects Power that Power will protect him.”Speaking of Stallman, it’s hard to move on and simply forget about the damage unjustly done to his reputation if not his career as well. The media did a lot of damage after VICE had deliberately distorted what Stallman had said. For over a month this helped distract from the real MIT scandal, which involved Bill Gates, a self-loving cult leader and idol to a lot of people (because he spent two decades paying to media to do this). “Dead men may tell no tales, but the story of Jeffrey Epstein is far from over,” Peter M. D’Abrosca wrote in relation to Bill Gates flying with Epstein. Gates is still on the Microsoft Board of Directors and he flew on Epstein’s infamous plane; his name was disclosed in the flight logs. Bill Gates never denied that he flew the “Lolita Express” with Epstein. The documentary evidence is compelling enough that he cannot deny it (he already lied about other things in relation to Epstein, later to be caught in these lies that some media helped refute). Now he only ‘speaks’ through spokespeople. Here are some flight logs:
“Numerous victims claim the plane was set up with a bed and used by Epstein and his guests to rape underage victims,” say sites on the Web (there’s corroboration), but look over there, everybody! Richard Stallman scrutinised the word “assault” as used regarding an accused dead man (his position on the term “assault” in relation to all sexual improprieties is nothing new, there’s a formal reference page about it, and many people agree with him that this term is overused). Guess who got in trouble at MIT. This institution should investigate why Bill Gates paid millions of dollars to Epstein and relayed these to MIT (after he had spent lots of time getting so close to Epstein). Why did he pay? What for? Where’s the elaborate Federal investigation? Where has the Linux Foundation apologised for accepting money from these people? Or from the Pentagon? Nowhere. Because to the Linux Foundation the real problem is the ‘religion’ which is GNU/Linux users, as opposed to Microsoft and Gates. The Linux Foundation worships money, so it shows respect only to those who have money. Remember what the Linux Foundation’s chief said to all of us a decade ago; we need to “respect Microsoft” (even if it helps ICE with illegal detention camps and helps the Army kill innocent people). Just… “respect Microsoft” and not those “nutcases” who question Microsoft’s motives.
Seems awfully probable that the only religion here is shared between the types of Zemlin and Microsoft/Bill Gates. The religion is money. Money and power. As long as Zemlin protects Power that Power will protect him. It's not like he's technically qualified for his role. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA