THE above video is the latest of many on this topic (many of these links can be found in the IBM wiki). It's a very important topic many are simply reluctant to even touch, perhaps for fear of being called all sorts of unflattering things. Many people lost sight of the fact that there was a hidden hand called 'Linux' Foundation in last month's (and end of March) botched attacks on the founder/father of the GNU/Linux operating system, which turns 38 later this year. Foundation staff, both past and present, pulled strings behind the scenes. We took note of that. It's obvious why they really dislike him. The sponsors can't stand him and are increasingly unwilling to coexist with him because it's a war of ideas, not a cult of personalities. It's no mistake or coincidence that IBM is happy to outsource its code to Microsoft, a de facto attack on sharing. To IBM, it's about overlapping interests and they want a monopoly back.

"Merely stating some inconvenient facts can get one ostracised."A long time ago we came to the conclusion that, based on some recent hires, the so-called 'Linux' Foundation became a bunch of corporate trolls, some of whom came from Microsoft. Those people and the corporations they front for use the word "master" a lot (the video shows some recent examples), but they have the audacity to tell real communities that it's "racist" and bigoted (and that lack of diversity in Computer Science/STEM is the fault of such communities). Upon closer inspection of course it's just a lie. In fact, many of these communities are a lot more diverse than the corporations which have long made such accusations.

The video above takes stock of recent articles (e.g. "IBM Founder (Watson) Gave a Nazi Salute, Admired Hitler, Said Hitler Was Doing the Right Thing" and "New Interview With Edwin Black: IBM Has Never Apologised, Instead It Hid Its Role in Nazi Germany"), it shows that rather than promoting Free software or even "Open Source" -- a term they prefer for openwashing their corporate masters -- they're training for outsourcing to proprietary traps (clown computing with mass surveillance).

As pointed out along the lines, imagine Greg K-H responding to Microsoft's attacks on Linux the same way he responds to UMN's rogue patches. Novell paid him his salary for a long time and some of that money came from Microsoft, so don't expect staff of the 'Linux' Foundation to bite the palm which feeds. Those people are trolling the community, the real community, which they hope to weaken if not completely destroy. The front page of Linux.com currently shows 3 times the same headline ("‘Master,’ ‘Slave’ and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing"), linking to the Web site of the Linux Foundation. “Watson€®” is a lot more offensive than “Whitelist” and “Master”, as we said last year, but somehow we're supposed to focus on communities as the real problem. A year ago we published "Let’s Ban Bombings, Not Words (Corporations Taking Away People’s Freedom of Speech So They Can Bomb ’in Peace')", earlier this year we published "Microsoft: Nationalism As A Service (NaaS)", "The Linux Foundation is Trying to Obscure Racism Using Microsoft-Inspired Tactics (Vouchers Disguised as Actual Money)", and there's also "Linux Foundation, With Zero African-American Employees (in a Country Where 13.4% Identify as African-American), Boasts About Its “Support for the Black Community”..."

It's a recurring theme, isn't it? Very racist corporations, or corporate bullies that bomb people, are saying to the actual, real community (people who write code) that it is bigoted and intolerant, not inclusive etc. Classic corporate trolling. They're hijacking civil rights causes to troll the very people who cherish and protect those. They even troll the IRC channels while sabotaging GNU/Linux. It's not limited to race either; they leverage the gender card (e.g. "Linux Foundation (Men for Monopolies) Once Again Hijacking Women’s (and Minorities’) Voices for Public Relations" as cited in the video, just before "Removing Our Leaders Because of Diversity is Disingenuous and Hypocritical").

As we put it a few months ago: "The problem is, as we’ve noted before, this is a distraction from racists and bigots who profit from war. They don’t get a job at the Foundation by participating in protests but by cheering for billionaires."

If we're not citing a broad range of different sites, it's mostly because there's reluctance to touch the topic. Many who know this to be true don't want to say it out in public. With concepts like "safe space" and "code of conduct" the ramifications might simply be too great. Merely stating some inconvenient facts can get one ostracised. ⬆