01.23.21
Posted in Deception, DRM, Free/Libre Software, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 12:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: It’s time to reject Google’s Web monopoly (shared with other companies but still an oligopoly); removing its Web browser would be a good start
SOME people seem a little shocked that not only Chrome but also Chromium is a listening device (or “app”). Google didn’t create such a browser out of altruism or goodwill. It’s just an instrument of control — a piece of software that merely leverages Free software to develop something proprietary cheaply and quickly (while doing the minimum towards licence compliance), i.e. another Android or Chrome OS. Google has been trying to replace the underlying toolchain with something that’s not GPL (copyleft), but without success, at least not so far. The compiler, the kernel and so on are still Free-as-in-freedom software. The thing that sit on top is not. Mr. Torvalds and the Linux Foundation are fine with it. Serves them well enough (attracting many paying members that don’t necessarily contribute to software freedom in any way) because it fattens the budget irrespective of agenda/objective..
The above video deals with the patent trap that Chrome fast becomes whilst limiting people’s ability to remove antifeatures (there will be consequences or retaliation). As a prominent Slackware developer, who compiles (or packages) the Web browser himself, put it [1, 2]: “Google muzzles all Chromium browsers on 15 March 2021″ and “Chromium 88 removes Flash support,” (as mentioned in the media) albeit it leaves us all with EME/DRM instead.
It’s probably perfectly fair to say that Chrome (and Chromium) is about monopoly and monoculture, not freedom. The Web is becoming increasingly bloated, not for the sake of users but for the benefit of surveillance, which begets social control (class war). We really need to convince GNU/Linux users to gradually get away from Chrome and Chromium (the “lesser evil”). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Hardware, Microsoft at 7:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The pseudo-scientific ‘report’ from Harbor Research is more of the same nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to; unethical if not rogue firms are being paid to lie — or to perpetuate falsehoods which someone stands to gain from
THIS is likely the last video in this series (see the series’ index in our relevant wiki page). “Let’s sit down and have a chat”-type ‘research’ by Harbor Research isn’t scientific. I’ve seen many studies and scientific papers over the years. I carefully reviewed some and wrote some extensive reports. What Harbor Research produces is akin to a PowerPoint presentation with stick figures and logos in it. It refers to a bunch of chats, not any analytical or in-depth investigation. It makes recommendations based on just about nothing of substance. One might joke that Harbor Research is in fact not a research firm but a marketing agency. Why did Intel hire those people?
“Given the direction Intel has chosen, boosted by fake ‘research’ from Harbor Research, the company may be doomed.”In yesterday’s news we already saw ongoing outsourcing of oneAPI to Microsoft (GitHub). It’s like Intel employees work for Microsoft instead of Intel and developers who use Intel’s APIs are expected to become “slaves” of Microsoft. This is a recipe for putting them off and driving them away. The coreboot developers had a thing or two to say about recent Intel platforms (last month) and based on news sent to us this morning Intel is trying “to rebuild its engineering corps” (it knows it’s falling way behind) and Intel “is in trouble.” (According to one of the biggest papers out there)
Another bit of news sent to us this morning says: “Intel is one of the few remaining semiconductor firms that both designs and manufactures its own chips, but the business model has come into question in recent years as the company lost its manufacturing lead to the Taiwanese and Korean companies.”
Given the direction Intel has chosen, boosted by fake ‘research’ from Harbor Research, the company may be doomed. No wonder so many engineers have left or ponder leaving. I know several who left recently. Intel will never publicly admit that. It pretends all is well and “business as usual”…
“Intel is not only pivoting towards Windows,” told us a former Intel insider, “but more specifically proprietary software for Windows. This looks like a move to make it twice as difficult to excise the Wintel platform from your infrastructure after a decade of seeing developers retargetting their applications to run on Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android operating systems on non-Intel hardware. If the tide isn’t stemmed now, it will soon be too late, especially as Android and iOS apps can be run on ChromeOS and macOS respectively.”
“Intel’s actions and this report also looks like seeking approval from Microsoft,” the former insider added, “because something might have happened behind the scenes with respect to Microsoft de-emphasising support for Intel platforms with their recent Surface hardware containing Qualcomm chips, but even more Microsoft being forced to start working on its own server chips for Azure due to increased pricing pressure from AWS.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.22.21
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 9:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: President Biden may not be as bad as his predecessor, but that hardly means very much; software freedom is still threatened, along with many other things
IT should be possible to use political analogies or parables without getting too political. In the United States, for instance, the administration is moving back to the left (but it can hardly be called “leftist”).
“…we must always push towards actual software freedom, seeing that Microsoft is increasingly hijacking the “Open Source” brand while persisting with proprietary software pushes across every sector, including the voting machines.”In the case of software, we’re certainly moving away from the age of shrink-wrapped proprietary software, but with Clown Computing and openwashing of non-free software we can hardly claim that society now champions software freedom. There’s more surveillance than ever before and down to the level of immutable hardware we have a growing number of user-hostile restrictions.
Is this really a “win”?
Well, relatively speaking we might have accomplished something and that something is avoidance of the “greater evil”.
But we must always push towards actual software freedom, seeing that Microsoft is increasingly hijacking the “Open Source” brand while persisting with proprietary software pushes across every sector, including the voting machines.
Software freedom cannot be accomplished by an election where both (permissible) sides are pre-selected by robber barons who bankroll both.
We wish President Biden well in undoing some of the truly awful policies of Donald Trump. Wait a month or two (maybe mere weeks) before the mask falls off — metaphorically speaking — and Biden serves the very same masters Trump was serving (as Obama too had done when Biden was VP for 8 years). At the end it is them, the (true) “owners of the country”, who call the shots on all important issues. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Finance at 1:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The Linux Foundation and its PR stunts don’t help combat racism; one might argue that the Foundation is leveraging racism, which prevails in the US, to paint itself as benevolent and caring (offering immaterial things and self-serving press releases)
TWO years ago an anonymous contributor of ours (not white, not male) investigated race and gender issues at the Linux Foundation, which hires nobody black but is perfectly happy to leverage racial grievances at critical times (where there are opportunities to score PR points on the cheap). The matter is scarcely and rarely explored in the media. For instance, on MLK Day (days ago) the Foundation issued this press release, soon to be echoed by a bunch of puff pieces from Foundation affiliates and media partners (such as this one or this one).
“It’s not grassroots, but it is looking to exploit high-profile activists and activism, quite frankly in the same way/fashion top sponsors of the Foundation do.”Corporate activism or pseudo-activism isn’t a new issue and it’s not unique to the Foundation; it’s not unique to technology either as it’s highly pervasive in politics. This video, which was difficult to do (especially without any preparation), brings up more difficult issues that nobody wants to speak about (out of fear of offending people or talking down legitimate gestures). The Foundation extends an olive branch to billionaires, not to communities. It’s not grassroots, but it is looking to exploit high-profile activists and activism, quite frankly in the same way/fashion top sponsors of the Foundation do. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Microsoft at 5:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The recommendation of an Intel marriage with Microsoft (even in units that deal mostly with Linux) is an insulting slap across the face of developers employed there; we take a look at recommendations made to IoTG (Intel) by a firm with Microsoft orientation (screenshot to the right)
LAST night we looked at the firm Intel had hired to recommend Microsoft (push polling seems likely), allegedly after Intel’s decision. Some tell us that a year earlier the nontechnical ‘suits’ at Intel finalised that strategy regardless (see this series’ index in the relevant wiki page for additional information and context). Why seek consultation other than ‘arse-covering’ (seeking to reaffirm a bad strategy, albeit with the veneer or guise of ‘professional’ ‘research’)? A few dozens, 50 or so men from Denver, Colorado (without much industry experience) would not know any more/better than Intel’s own in-house engineers.
Here is an image, extracted from the above report, which shows the summary of recommendations to IOTG/IoTG (the IoT Group at Intel).
“Disappointing,” told us a source, “but not surprised.”
This angered quite a few Intel insiders. The last thing they want is Microsoft at the job… especially those who work on “IoT” ‘things’, i.e. mostly Linux.
“Is there a way to find a public source,” asked us one person, about “the graphic which was attached? [It had been circulated internally for a while] It shows a bad Microsoft infection via partnership obligations.”
We’ve gotten the full report, which we plan to release at a later stage. It’s not a “public source”; as we explained before, Intel worked hard to keep this sort of stuff concealed. These sorts of reports, we’ve been told, are largely responsible for the horrible direction and the demise of Intel. Shades of Nokia…
The video mentions Microsoft AstroTurfing. We have documented and assembled many examples of Microsoft AstroTurfing. In the past few days in our main IRC channels we’ve had to cope with trolls based in Washington, promoting GitHub using anonymous accounts and looking to discredit us using a bunch of Microsoft lies. Are these Microsoft employees? AstroTurfing? Hard to tell…
“One last thought is the Microsoft move to design chips,” told us an informed source about all this, “maybe this will turn around the adoption of proprietary tools and partnership with Microsoft. I guess we’ll see.”
The way we see it, Microsoft is all vapourware and PR stunts. There’s already intense competition in this space and Windows is a misfit.
“Wintel is an acknowledged problem,” told us one person earlier this month (having seen portions of these leaks), “but it is probably forgotten by the old crowd and unknown to the younger generations. Thus it would be very important to review and add weight to the review by including new material. The material described is very interesting.
“So many in US business are loser zero-sum-gamers and don’t get the nature of collaborative development. However, look at this oldish link to see what’s happening at OpenStreetMap regarding open data collaboration.”
Intel does not seem to understand community. It doesn’t understand developers. It does not ‘get’ software freedom. Does it insist so strongly on dying with Microsoft? And if so, whose idea is it? An Intel loyalist or Microsoft moles? Stay tuned… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.21.21
Posted in Deception, Hardware, Microsoft at 7:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: Having looked at the members of staff of Harbor Research (individually), it seems clearer now why they have an affinity for Microsoft and why they’re directing Intel to liaise with Microsoft and become a prisoner of Microsoft (even in areas where Microsoft is increasingly irrelevant)
THE second ‘phase’ of this series deals with Harbor Research, which isn’t exactly about research. It almost feels like a marketing firm. The reports too are suggestive of that. No actual research is being done, just some questionnaires, along with presentations and many logos. As noted in previous parts (see index in the relevant wiki page), Intel is asking Harbor Research for advice or maybe some fancy presentations to help justify a decision already made a year prior (according to sources).
Who’s Harbor Research anyway? How many people out there ever heard of it? I know I have not and it’s actually a very small firm in the middle of the US. Harbor Research employees are listed as follows in a Microsoft site (just over a dozen of them):
The firm’s President (and father/founder) Glen Allmendinger was a Senior Analyst at the notorious Yankee Group, known for anti-Linux bias, Microsoft propaganda, and SCO boosting (when it was attacking Linux with frivolous litigation sponsored by Microsoft), whereas their Marketing Vice President has this:
Well, quite a few of the other employees list Microsoft as their “Interest” and they seem to be fans of Microsoft Office (the majority of them list that as their endorsed skill).
So what we have is a bunch of people who know how to use Microsoft Word, have a college degree, and almost no industry experience. Maybe Intel should have asked its own engineers for advice, not a bunch of barely known people near a ski resort. Based on their profiles, which I’ve studied (education and job history), they hardly seem to have any experience as developers. They publish reports. Not the same thing as firsthand experience.
Writing to us about the HRI Research [sic] report (“Developer Tools analysis”), a source highlighted this part to us, calling it “yucky”:
As we noted before, at the time this report was issued Intel had already worked with its own self-hosted Gitlab and Free software-based development workflow. There was no issue with that. It generally worked. Except perhaps when Intel hired unskilled people who barely ever used anything but Microsoft. In the next part we’ll show that Harbor Research basically recommends what it knows best. It recommends Microsoft for almost everything. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link (because video rebuttals are easier, faster, and nuanced)
Summary: The longtime pushers or the lobby of patent profiteers just carry on pushing for software patents, nowadays latching onto the inane and unwarranted media hype around Hey Hi (AI) — a hype wave that was co-opted by EPO management to grant unlawful patents
THE following mail was sent to a large number of people, urging them to “draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines” of the EPO after Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos misused buzzwords to make software patents look like they’re somehow noble and so incredibly innovative that applications with Hey Hi (AI) in them should be accepted and then granted as patents. In the video I discuss the following message, which is disturbing for a number of reasons (he’s also pushing it all as a static video this week).
From: Bastian Best <mail@bastianbest.org>
Subject: Patenting AI in the EPO guidelines
Hi -
Did you know that the EPO’s patent examination guidelines have a dedicated section on AI and machine learning? But in my opinion they are too restrictive for a number of reasons. I’ll show you why in today’s podcast. At the end of the episode, I’m also sharing some of my best tips for how to draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines.
WATCH ON YOUTUBE
You can also listen to this on your favorite podcast platform. Right now, it’s on Spotify and Pocket Casts, and other platforms will follow soon:
SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST
I’m excited for your feedback. Let me know what you think, and which topics you want to hear about in the future?
Talk to you soon,
Bastian
PATENTS FOR THE DIGITAL FUTURE
bastianbest.org • #TheBestPractice
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
Website
Copyright © 2021 Bastian Best, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up at bastianbest.org or because I know you personally and thought you might like it.
Mailing address:
Bastian Best
c/o BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Prinzregentenplatz 7
Munich 81675
Germany
The author of this is a longtime proponent of software patents, and not because he’s coding or anything. In fact, he ‘hijacked’ the handle “swpat” or “swpats” in Twitter, only to use that to promote this toxic agenda… even though that abbreviation (and hashtag) is typically used by critics and opponents of software patents. Gaining visibility by abducting the critics’ venues or avenues isn’t exactly an ethical trick. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.20.21
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 1:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“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… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA