"Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage."

--Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Summary: Intel's preference for Microsoft monopoly (an imposed/top-down decision) was seemingly certified by so-called 'consultants' and 'analysts' from the outside rather than the inside, basically manufacturing a false perception of consent after managers had already made up their minds

THIS ongoing series has already shown the degree of abuse to which Free software and GNU/Linux developers get subjected to. Intel doesn't value those people; it's trying to control and corrupt them while big salaries compel them to obey. A lot of this was happening when Coronavirus made it exceedingly hard to seek alternative employment/ers.

The above video continues and build upon the previous two parts.

“...rumor had it the Intel decision to drop Gitlab and go with GitHub in 2019... was influenced by these types of research reports.”
      --Anonymous"This document," explained a source, "is about what the developers use or might use... with regard to software."

"Not entirely sure," the source added, "but rumor had it the Intel decision to drop Gitlab and go with GitHub in 2019... was influenced by these types of research reports."

"This report doesn't seem to take GNU Linux devs into consideration," the source told us. We've seen some feedback from developers, including (as quoted before): "why don't they just ask US!"

Another one said, "dropbox?! github?! slack?! We're going to lose devs... I just use a shell, irc and gitlab but for change... why not an internal git of our own..."

“dropbox?! github?! slack?! We're going to lose devs... I just use a shell, irc and gitlab but for change... why not an internal git of our own...”
      --AnonymousOne IoT developer using GNU/Linux said that, having been informed several months later about the report.

Another insider quote: "Dropbox... vscode... github... y agencies may know where the i... I do see mysql but no mention of phpmyadmin... no mariadb"

These highly biased 'studies' aren't based on actual research of technical analysis but on branding and a small survey of a few developers (no idea how or why they were chosen).

As we shall show later, they not only promote Microsoft proprietary applications but also "Clown Computing" and GitHub (a prison for developers).

In the video I mention this latest GitHub takedown. Don't expect the new president to put an end to such misuse of the DMCA. In fact, after the honeymoon period with "Joe" people will realise that just like Donald Trump when it comes to copyright zealots he's totally with them (he has been notorious for it since decades ago)

Here's the latest example of Microsoft engaging in censorship of torrent-related projects on behalf of the copyright cartel.

And the project has already vanished.

Intel already had its own instance of Git with Gitlab for user friendliness. Who made the decision to dump it and outsource to proprietary traps of Microsoft? Stay tuned to find out... ⬆