EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

07.14.19

GitHub is Microsoft’s Proprietary Software and Centralised (Monopoly) Platform, But When Canonical’s Account There Gets Compromised Suddenly It’s Ubuntu’s Fault?

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft, Security, Ubuntu at 12:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One year ago: GitHub as the Latest Example of Microsoft Entryism in Free/Libre Software

Internet

Summary: Typical media distortions and signs that Microsoft already uses GitHub for censorship of Free/Open Source software that does not fit Microsoft’s interests

CORPORATE media is toxic rubbish and its business model typically involves serving the companies covered. This is why the media keeps framing the latest GitHub censorship as a GitHub issue (it’s actually Microsoft using its control over GitHub to delete particular ‘naughty’ FOSS [1,2]) and earlier this month Ubuntu received a lot of negative press after its steward’s GitHub account had been compromised. Microsoft was not even mentioned. This is all very typical and we responded to that briefly in our daily links. This is the kind of thing one can expect when Microsoft pays so much money to the media, e.g. in the form of advertising.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. GitHub Removed Open Source Versions of DeepNude [Ed: The new company is a Microsoft censorship tool. Every image editor can be used to make fake nudes of people. Even image sequences. Will Microsoft ban image editors too? Don't even think about criticising Microsoft for its crimes in some comments, commits or code at GitHub as they might suspend the account.]
  2. Deepfake DeepNude app’s open source versions removed from GitHub [Ed: Microsoft is doing censorship of FOSS and playing/acting as morality police. Maybe banning encryption software (with no back doors) is next on the agenda because of the terror scare.]

06.06.19

Chapter 6: Damning With Faint Praise — Take the Right Examples of Free Software and Exploit Them for Everything

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 1:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Table of Contents

Introduction: Cover and quick Introduction [PDF]

Chapter 1: Know your enemies– Act like a friend [PDF]

Chapter 2: Work with the system– Use OEMs and your legal team [PDF]

Chapter 3: Playing the victim– Show the world that too much freedom hurts development [PDF]

Chapter 4: You get what you pay for– Getting skeptics to work for you [PDF]

Chapter 5: Open Source Judo– How to bribe the moderates to your side [PDF]

You are here ☞ Chapter 6: Damning with faint praise– Take the right examples of free software and exploit them for everything [PDF]

Chapter 7: Patent War– Use low-quality patents to prove that all software rips off your company

Chapter 8: A foot in the door– how to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects

Chapter 9: Ownership through Branding– Change the names, and change the world

Chapter 10: Moving forward– Getting the best results from Open source with your monopoly


You might not believe me if I tell you that we decide what “cool” means, unless you look at the results in real life. We have the press working for us, we have open source doing what we need even as they believe they are fighting us. We can keep the press obedient in exchange for access, we can enjoy allegiance from open source from other deals that we make.

If our research shows that something is cool, we buy it or we produce it. One thing you can’t do is make the same thing look cool forever. No matter how happy some customers are, or how much they rely on our software, we are still going to lead them away from one thing and towards another– it isn’t just because it’s better; it’s because if we let them rely on what they already have, we won’t get to sell them anything new.

Now with cloudware, we control the access to the software. But it is still necessary for people to perceive that we are working to make improvements. The most convincing way to do this is to keep chasing what’s new– and dragging people from one thing to the next.

Once again we do this as friends, with a carrot of features and not just the stick of walled access and fees. We aren’t just forcing people to pay, but leading them to want their subscriptions and feel good about them. We make promises about the new features being useful, but we also need the press and our marketing to make our products cool. No matter how much of a monopoly we work to maintain, there are other companies out there looking to create something before we can. We need to be sure we own and control it– otherwise, it belongs to them.

Another great thing about what’s new is that people don’t know anything about it. We can write our own narrative about new products, and until enough people gain access and knowledge (and preferably first-hand experience) they can’t say very much about the product that we can say twice as much about. New products let us run circles around people who claim to know about them– they give us a unique advantage.

As for lack of familiarity, we can actually use that to increase interest rather than lose business. If the product is attractive enough, we can use the people who are familiar with it against the people who aren’t, and make the latter look like they are ignorant if they are unfamiliar with our product line. So the incentive to do business is to continue to appear knowledgeable. This tactic works notably well among enthusiasts and professionals.

If you ask people to define “cool,” they can’t always come up with something concrete. But you don’t have to be a cool person at all to know what definition of “cool” matters to us– “cool” is what’s new and what people want. That’s as cool as we will ever need to be. That’s what keeps us where we are, and everyone else where they are. And that’s what we have to keep control of, if we want to stay where we are.

On the other side of the coin we have what’s not cool: stuff that’s not new, or stuff that people don’t want. That’s what we have to avoid offering– if that’s all we have, we need to buy or develop new things to offer.

A superior product is like a politician’s speech– the best way to sell a lie is to put a truth in it, so people assume the rest of it is also the truth. And when you want to sell a new product you can do the same thing: start with a feature people are desperate to have, and you can build a lot of garbage around it as long as the important features are satisfying enough.

It should be more than obvious that some of these features– even some of the best features– are going to be proprietary. So it becomes imperative if we are going to compete with and also infiltrate open source that we need to loosen the hold that free software has on the narrative.

A schism can be hashed out and resolved– what we want is to widen it to a chasm and actually hand the reins of free software over to open source, so that all “open source” is forever a way to steer people towards our features.

Everything cool (that we care about) is new and wanted, and everything uncool is old and boring and standard. To keep churning out cooler, newer products (not always cool like Apple, sometimes just cool like an update with a few new features) we need to use our shills to show everyone how uncool the alternatives are. As long as we look cool and friendly, people will be reluctant to care that we need to go after our competition in this way. After all, cool is also about winning, and winning means someone loses somewhere.

By the time people are convinced that our competitors aren’t cool, they won’t want to side with them anymore and won’t defend them from us.

We need to turn rich against poor, as mentioned two chapters ago– and we need to turn inexperienced users against experienced ones, to prevent skeptics from handing down their stories to potential customers. It is essential to paint seasoned experts as gray and irrelevant, as has-beens who don’t understand the genius of our new offerings. And it is essential to paint every tool we used to offer or never offered as outdated and obsolete.

When dealing with open source, the most important person to paint as a has-been is Richard Stallman. He and Gates are decades-long rivals, diametrically opposed to each other in their philosophies. But more relevant is that he leads the movement that opposes us– we need to keep open source on our side, and lead them further away from free software.

Fortunately, Stallman and his followers are tightly-knit in their ideology. Attacking any of them is like attacking all of them– we can play up their hacker style as social ineptitude, their adherence (where it exists) to standards and interoperability as a refusal to evolve, their playful culture as a refusal to grow up and be professional, and their self-reliance and independence as being non-team-players and even toxic masculinity.

Their hacker philosophy is about putting certain values first– just as we use new features to get people to accept new flaws that we can promise to fix later (and then say that we have a greater commitment to security) and use open source to bring people to our exclusive software lines, we can use their values to steer the next generation of customers (and critics) towards a more corporate culture.

Any social values that we are saddled with keeping up appearances about in the workplace, we can instill through open source and then claim the rest are not putting enough emphasis on. Of course, some of these values are good values in and of themselves. But as much as we have “social value theater” in the workplace and have to play along, we can dump the same corporate culture onto anyone who will call it professionalism, and then say everyone else is just unprofessional and toxic.

In the short run we can use this against Stallman and his organization, but in the long run we can even use this to shackle Linus and gradually push him out the door. In our culture, it doesn’t pay to be eccentric except when it makes us billions– get with the program or get out. A leader that isn’t making us money is a leader who has let us down, and we need to get rid of them as quickly as possible.

The values of free software developers and the values of free software itself go hand in hand. We need to denigrate most of their software, along the same lines that we denigrate the people who create it. As said over and over, we need to rely on shills, fans, and “useful third parties” to denigrate these people and their work. We also need a “path forward” to our products. Whenever we outline our strategies to feed to our shills and the tech press, they need to paint free software and its authors as true gems– from a bygone era.

“Yes, that was really great. But now, it’s time to look to the future.”

The future is (always) us, and the products we want people to use. There’s no rise in quarterly revenue for tried-and-trusted, except when it’s merely the glue holding our new products together.

Relevant quotes from the Halloween documents:

“OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft — particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.”

“However, other OSS process weaknesses provide an avenue for Microsoft to garner advantage in key feature areas such as architectural improvements (e.g. storage+), integration (e.g. schemas), ease-of-use, and organizational support.”

“OSS process vitality is directly tied to the Internet”

“The OSS process is unique in its participants’ motivations and the resources that can be brought to bare down on problems. OSS, therefore, has some
interesting, non-replicable assets which should be thoroughly understood.”

“Open source software has roots in the hobbyist and the scientific community and was typified by ad hoc exchange of source code by developers/users.”

“Credit for the first instance of modern, organized OSS is generally given to Richard Stallman of MIT. In late 1983, Stallman created the Free Software
Foundation (FSF) — http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/fsf/fsf.html — with the goal of creating a free version of the UNIX operating system.”

“Commercial software development processes are hallmarked by organization around economic goals. However, since money is often not the (primary) motivation behind Open Source Software, understanding the nature of the threat posed requires a deep understanding of the process and motivation of Open Source development teams.”

“In other words, to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.”

“These individuals are more like hobbyists spending their free time / energy on OSS project development while maintaining other full time jobs. This has begun to change somewhat as commercial versions of the Linux OS have appeared.”

“Coordination of an OSS team is extremely dependent on Internet-native forms of collaboration.”

“OSS projects the size of Linux and Apache are only viable if a large enough community of highly skilled developers can be amassed to attack a problem.”

“Common goals are the equivalent of vision statements which permeate the distributed decision making for the entire development team. A single, clear
directive (e.g. “recreate UNIX”) is far more efficiently communicated and acted upon by a group than multiple, intangible ones”

“Because the entire Linux community has years of shared experience dealing with many other forms of UNIX, they are easily able to discern — in a non-confrontational manner — what worked and what didn’t.”

“Having historical, 20:20 hindsight provides a strong, implicit structure. In more forward looking organizations, this structure is provided by strong, visionary leadership.”

“Raymond posits that developers are more likely to reuse code in a rigorous open source process than in a more traditional development environment because they are always guaranteed access to the entire source all the time.”

“Treating your users as co-developers is your least-hassle route to rapid code improvement and effective debugging.”

“Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers.”

“Because the developers are typically hobbyists, the ability to `fund’ multiple, competing efforts is not an issue and the OSS process benefits from the ability to pick the best potential implementation out of the many produced.”

“Universities are some of the original proponents of OSS as a teaching tool.”

“Linus Torvalds is a celebrity in the Linux world and his decisions are considered final. By contrast, a similar celebrity leader did NOT exist for the BSD-derived efforts.”

“What are the core strengths of OSS products that Microsoft needs to be concerned with?”

“The single biggest constraint faced by any OSS project is finding enough developers interested in contributing their time towards the project. As an
enabler, the Internet was absolutely necessary to bring together enough people for an Operating System scale project.”

“Like commercial software, the most viable single OSS project in many categories will, in the long run, kill competitive OSS projects and `acquire’ their IQ assets. For example, Linux is killing BSD Unix and has absorbed most of its core ideas (as well as ideas in the commercial UNIXes).”

“One of the most interesting implications of viable OSS ecosystems is long-term credibility.”

“Long term credibility exists if there is no way you can be driven out of business in the near term. This forces change in how competitors deal with you.”

“a product/process is long-term credible if FUD tactics can not be used to combat it.”

“OSS systems are considered credible because the source code is available from potentially millions of places and individuals.”

“The likelihood that Apache will cease to exist is orders of magnitudes lower than the likelihood that WordPerfect, for example, will disappear. The
disappearance of Apache is not tied to the disappearance of binaries (which are affected by purchasing shifts, etc.) but rather to the disappearance of source code and the knowledge base.“

“Inversely stated, customers know that Apache will be around 5 years from now — provided there exists some minimal sustained interested from its
user/development community.”

“The GPL and its aversion to code forking reassures customers that they aren’t riding an evolutionary `dead-end’ by subscribing to a particular commercial version of Linux.”

“The “evolutionary dead-end” is the core of the software FUD argument.”

From https://antitrust.slated.org/halloween/halloween1.html

02.04.18

Contrary to Claims From the Litigation ‘Industry’, AIA, PTAB, and the USPTO’s Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Make the US Better for Innovation

Posted in America, Deception, FUD, Law, Patents at 11:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: In the United States, Software Patents Are Still Consistently Invalidated Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

SCSI HD

Summary: In an effort to undermine patent reform, patent extremists now latch onto findings about the relative decline of the US (e.g. in the sciences) and blame that squarely on patent policy, neglecting to mention that patent activity in the US (e.g. filings) is at an all-time high

THE US has changed after the Federal Circuit and Board (PTAB) started invalidating software patents en masse. It changed for the better. As we noted last month, the patent microcosm blames everything negative in the US (decline in rankings pertaining to science) on AIA, which is responsible for PTAB (and thus IPRs). Sometimes they also lump in SCOTUS (with Alice). It’s laughable and we already wrote some rebuttals to their arguments, which are worse than shallow. They rely on no concrete evidence, as we shall explain in a moment.

“…the patent microcosm blames everything negative in the US (decline in rankings pertaining to science) on AIA, which is responsible for PTAB (and thus IPRs).”The High Tech Inventors Alliance, a front group for several large technology companies, defends PTAB. “Data contradicts the claims made by some that #patent reform has harmed innovation,” it wrote a few days ago. “Since the introduction of the IPR review process and the Supreme Courts Alice decision, innovation in the United States is flourishing.”

This is empirically true. Here is the corresponding article from John Thorne, who describes himself as “general counsel of the High Tech Inventors Alliance, a coalition of top technology companies supporting balanced patent policy and collectively holding more than 115,000 patents.”

From the article:

On Friday, a group claiming to represent the nation’s small inventors will demonstrate at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) building. They will call for an end to the PTO’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) process, a procedure for taking a second look at the validity of patents. Some of the speakers will be genuine small inventors. But behind those little guys will be the big dollars of the biggest big-guy exploiters of the PTO’s missteps and mistakes.

[...]

The IPR was established in the 2011 bipartisan America Invents Act to restore integrity to what had become a too-often-broken patent system. The Act’s goal was to improve patent quality. It established an inexpensive, easy-to-access route for challenging patents that should never have been granted. The cost and slowness of always going to court had made appeal of bad patents too unreliable. The IPR was to fix that. Today, six years later, it is clear that it has worked.

Consider these facts. Almost 70 percent of this year’s challenged patents are in “high tech,” that is software, hardware and networking technologies. High tech is widely acknowledged to suffer from patent quality problems.

Then, too, a majority of those challenged high tech patents are owned by what are called “non-practicing entities,” otherwise known as patent trolls. These are companies that do not actually try to take patented ideas to market. They may acquire unused patents or they may patent general or obvious ideas — like the basic credit card and podcast patents that I mentioned — and use them to shakedown those who inadvertently stumbled into their unjustifiably patented territory, patent traps.

Josh Landau from CCIA (another front group for a lot of technology companies, both large and small) is rebutting the common lie told by the patent microcosm — that lack of patents on software harms investment. Innovation and patents are very different things, so he says that “Innovation Is Alive And Well”. From his post:

Innovation can come from anywhere—large established companies, individuals, and of course, small startup businesses. The innovation from startups can ultimately create new established companies. Many of today’s household names—Amazon, Google, Facebook, Intel—started out as a couple of founders and one innovative idea. So, if we want to see if innovation remains an important part of the American economy, looking at startup activity is a good place to—if you’ll pardon the pun—start.

We too wrote some articles to that effect. Facebook, which is probably the highest-profile member of the High Tech Inventors Alliance, has just been hit by another patent lawsuit (these are software patents and should be thrown out by the courts). Facebook too can be aggressive with patents at times, but it does not rely on litigation to operate. People are better off when technology companies work on various technologies rather than hiring lawyers and arguing in courts.

“They want people to think of everything in the US in terms of patents. They just see “patents” in everything.”Now, linking to Watchtroll, the “Innovation Alliance” (just a front group not for innovation but ‘patentism’) says “AUTM finds 37% of #highered startups are failing. What’s behind this “ominous trend”? The weakening U.S. #patent system.”

This is nonsense. It’s already debunked above. It’s not a study. It’s propaganda and it’s commissioned by those from the religion of ‘patentism’. They want people to think of everything in the US in terms of patents. They just see “patents” in everything. We wrote about it last weekend.

“Biggest surprise from yesterday’s @uspto PPAC meeting,” IAM wrote, “was acting head Matal’s disclosure that #patent filings in the US are up 5.4% y-o-y in first 3 months of current fiscal year. Sounds like no one was expecting it…”

“Where is the actual evidence that it’s declining? Filings are at record highs, technology companies are pleased with the status quo, so who is it that’s complaining? The litigation ‘industry’, including patent trolls.”We wrote about that meeting (Patent Public Advisory Committee) just now in relation to David Ruschke; I responded to IAM by saying: “Where are the maximalists who always moan that AIA damages the US patent system?”

They claim that patents are being crushed, but that clearly isn’t the case, is it? At the same time IAM released this article titled “If we fail to protect intellectual property, we destroy innovation” (again, the same old drama/alarmism about “innovation” being “destroyed”).

So-called ‘IP’ (e.g. patents or trademarks/copyrights etc.) is not about innovation but about protectionism. But let’s pretend it’s really all about innovation. Where is the actual evidence that it’s declining? Filings are at record highs, technology companies are pleased with the status quo, so who is it that’s complaining? The litigation ‘industry’, including patent trolls.

02.28.17

IAM ‘Magazine’ Rented Out to Microsoft Again, in Order to Attack Amazon (as Host of Free/Libre Software) Using Software Patents FUD

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 6:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Marketing and an attack on one’s competition disguised as ‘news’

Microsoft IAM

Summary: The new front against GNU/Linux, or the attempt by Microsoft to tax the platform using software patents, is glossed over in puff pieces from Microsoft, conveniently published under IAM’s own umbrella again

FOR a number of years now — and as recently as just months ago — we have been pointing out the role of IAM as mouthpiece/megaphone of Microsoft Corporation, or whoever pays the bills (e.g. by company-wide subscription). However one passes/creates financial strings, it’s not publicly disclosed and it can affect the editorial process.

Right now there is this new ‘article’ (actually ghostwritten) which repeats the lie that “Azure IP Advantage” is some sort of Earth-shattering thing and that it’s effective against trolls (it’s not because Microsoft cannot sue them; at best it could offer indemnification, but that’s not what this programme is about). It’s yet more of that scaremongering about what would happen to people, especially if they don’t pay Microsoft. We have already covered the subject in the following recent articles:

Is the Linux Foundation going to remark on Microsoft’s resort to software patents? Or playing dirty games with software patents in order to entice people? With Microsoft money on its table, the Linux Foundation’s staff is likely to just foolishly smile and hope that nobody will notice what kind of members it continues to let in.

A point worth emphasising about Azure’s supposed “IP Advantage” is, these are all Microsoft software patents, as inside mere VMs one can only run software. It’s not about hardware or gadgets; the “bare metal” argument in the context of so-called ‘clouds’ has totally changed.

In the above IAM piece, the editor in chief continues a pattern of speaking to Microsoft chiefs or former chiefs for talking points. In this case, it’s just a large copy-paste job. Why not just call IAM a “division of Microsoft” or something like that? Or the courier of sponsors, including patent trolls? They are doing this not for the first time, and it’s usually the same people (just reprinting them). Sometimes it’s the EPO. In Techrights alone we wrote about IAM’s proximity to Microsoft many times before (they also run on Microsoft platforms and proprietary software).

Here is a portion from this ‘article’:

Microsoft’s recent launch of its Azure IP Advantage programme for the company’s cloud customers has generated a great deal of coverage. On the IAM blog, we argued that it once again showed the company to be a world leader when it comes to creating value from its patent portfolio. Regular IAM blog contributor and former Microsoft chief patent counsel Bart Eppenauer – now managing partner of the Seattle office of Shook Hardy & Bacon – has put together a piece for us that explains why that is undoubtedly the case. Equally as important, however, is his observation that the Azure programme puts Microsoft way out ahead of the current number one cloud service provider, Amazon and its AWS programme, as well as (to a lesser extent) Google.

Microsoft can send trolls to attack Amazon or Amazon’s customers, then say, “flee to Microsoft or go bankrupt!” It’s not unthinkable given what we saw in recent history.

A lot of people use AWS to host GNU/Linux with a lot of Free software such as Apache. Only software patents can ever be asserted against customers of AWS and if Amazon was to offer indemnification of some kind, it would still enable Microsoft’s trolls to drive up the operation costs and thus hosting fees, rendering the platform less competitive. Amazon is actually one of the most sued (if not the most sued) company over patents.

As a side note, we often complain that Microsoft sends its trolls to attack Google. Microsoft’s legal targets (targets for bullies with patents) these days are typically Chrome or Chrome OS and Android, the GNU/Linux- and Linux-based operating systems (respectively) from Google. Microsoft goes after the pertinent OEMs as they have less incentive than Google to fight back in court. Having said that, Google too has gone to the dark side, as we noted a short while ago. TechDirt‘s founder too has just said that it’s “Disappointing To See Google’s Waymo Sue Over Patents” and this is what he published hours ago:

For years, we had pointed out that one of the nice things about the new generation of tech companies was that they rarely seemed to use patents offensively. Yes, they were subject to tons of patent lawsuits from trolls or from legacy players trying to hang on against innovators, but we’ve pointed out in the past that young companies innovate, while older companies litigate. So, we have a tendency to watch companies to see when they shift from being patent litigation defenders, to going on the offensive. For years — even as patent system supporters falsely claimed that Google only existed because of patents — it was good to see not a single example of Google going on the offensive and filing patent lawsuits against other companies.

That changed, unfortunately, back in 2012 when Google brought a patent lawsuit against Apple. Some argued that it wasn’t “really” Google, because it came from Motorola, a company that Google had purchased (mainly for the patents) and then only owned for a short while before dumping, but it was still a Google-owned property going on the offensive. At that time, we argued that if Google really wanted to support patent reform (as the company claimed) then it should stop being a patent aggressor.

Where are the large corporate actors that are willing to publicly and prominently fight back against software patents? Are there no real allies left, at least not among companies that grew too large to care? And what good is OIN or the Linux Foundation if they are mere lapdogs of some of the world’s largest patent bullies?

04.28.16

Latest Black Duck Puff Pieces a Good Example of Bad Journalism and How Not to Report

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Marketing, Security at 8:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No investigation, just churnalism

Churnalism

Summary: Why the latest “Future of Open Source Survey” — much like its predecessors — isn’t really a survey but just another churnalism opportunity for the Microsoft-connected Black Duck, which is a proprietary parasite inside the FOSS community

THE “Future of Open Source Survey” is not a survey. It’s just Black Duck’s self-promotional (marketing) tripe packaged as a “survey”. This is a common PR tactic, it’s not unique. We wrote about this so-called ‘survey’ in several articles in the past, e.g.:

We now have more of the same churnalism and it comes from the usual ‘news’ networks, in addition to paid press releases. When we first mentioned Shipley 8 years ago he was busy doing one nefarious thing and two years ago we saw him joining the Microsoft-connected Black Duck. He is quoted as saying (CBS) that “the rapid adoption of open source has outpaced the implementation of effective open-source management and security practices. We see opportunities to make significant improvements in those areas. With nearly half of respondents saying they have no formal processes to track their open source, and half reporting that no one has responsibility for identifying known vulnerabilities and tracking remediation, we expect to see more focus on those areas.” Thanks for the FUD, Mr. Shipley. So where do I buy your proprietary software (and software patents-protected) ‘solution’? That is, after all, what it’s all about, isn’t it? The ‘survey’ is an excuse or a carrier (if not Trojan horse) for proprietary software marketing.

Here is similar coverage from IDG and the Linux Foundation, whose writers did little more than repeat the talking points of Black Duck after the press release got spread around.

04.14.16

FUD Contra la Adopción de Free Software en el Gobierno y Negocios Proviende de Firmas Conectadas a Microsoft

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 8:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicadaen Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:34 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Elnuevo’ Microsoft no ataca al Free software directamente, o no tán visiblemente como antes, sin embargo todavía lo hace

Many arms

Sumario: Free software (FOSS) está todavía bajo constante ataque de Microsoft, incluso si estos ataques son ástutamente disfrazados para no poner en riesgo la fantasía de “Microsoft ama a Linux”
LA E.E.E. estrategia de Microsoft (destruir Linux desde su interior) está progresando mientras que Microsoft todavía está tratando de descarrilar activamente toda adopción de GNU/Linux (normalmente a través de servidores proxy). La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes y que continúa demandando (o amenaza con demandar a) los fabricantes de equipos Android a menos que le entregan dinero en efectivo, o en algunos casos como parte del ´arreglo´ installen un montón de Microsoft sofware spyware en Android.
La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes …
Recuerden que Microsoft no tiene que atacar a Linux / FOSS/Android abiertamente con el fin de conseguir su objetivo. Una gran cantidad de gente de Microsoft han creado en los últimos años compañías spin-off que se son más servidores proxy de Microsoft, siendo leales a Microsoft, pero periféricos al mismo. Recuerde, por ejemplo, que financió Xamarin antes de que pase a formar parte de Microsoft (lo que era de esperarse). También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.

Tim Greene de IDG señala que SourceClear y Black Duck de practicar FOSS FUD; se trata de dos empresas que vinieron de Microsoft con el fin de manchar el software libre y ganar dinero en el proceso. El titular dice “código fuente abierto es frecuente potencialmente peligroso, en aplicaciones empresariales” (Ballmer todavía diríá es un “cáncer”, como si se trata de una enfermedad mortal y Microsoft lo llama “infestaciones de Linux” como si fuera una cucaracha que debe ser aplastado).
También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.

No sólo detectamos ésto ayer; incluso los lectores nos hablaron de ello hoy; ellos también se están dando cuenta cada vez más que los artículos anti-FOSS todavía están siendo ofrecidos por esos parásitos que están conectados por Microsoft. El colega de Greene, Korolov, hizo esto hace poco más de quince días. Hay que recordar que ambos son empresas conectadas a Microsoft, como hemos señalado aquí antes, y hacia el final hay una mención de White Fuente, quiennoesamigo de FOSS.

Esos llamados ‘periodistas’ sólo sigue hablando a las empresas que se benefician de este FUD y no son software libre en absoluto. Es como un artículo sobre el calentamiento global que invita para las cotizaciones (más completa del mundo) varios ‘expertos’ de las compañías petroleras. El último ejemplo no habla de los muchos problemas de software equivalentes (o peor) proprietarios, en lugar de hablar de la “martes de parches” de Microsoft, lo que deja las puertas traseras para uso de la NSA. Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión). Y recuerda cuánto dinero fluye de Microsoft para IDG …

Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión).
Microsoft piensa de alguna manera que asociando su software proprietario con “Linux” será lo suficiente para promover la percepción de que es “open” y por lo tanto elegible pare uso gubernamental a nivel mundial (candado proprietario).- Recuérden quién saboteó las centrales núcleares Iraníes – Al mismo tiempo constantemente sigue atacandoa a Linux.
Predique en algun momento coexistencia pacífica con Windows. Pueden reírse a costa de mí.Lo merezco.”

Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

04.12.16

FUD Against Free Software Adoption in the Government and in Businesses Comes From Firms Connected to Microsoft

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘new’ Microsoft does not attack Free software directly, or not as visibly as before

Many arms

Summary: Free software (FOSS) is still under constant attacks from Microsoft, even if these attacks are shrewdly masqueraded so as to not jeopardise the “Microsoft loves Linux” fantasy

THE E.E.E. strategy of Microsoft (destroying Linux from the inside) is progressing while Microsoft is still trying to actively derail GNU/Linux adoption (usually via proxies). The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month and it sues (or threatens to sue) Android OEMs unless they hand over crates of cash, or in some cases agree to preload Android with lots of Microsoft spyware.

“The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month…”Remember that Microsoft does not need to attack Linux/FOSS/Android directly in order to get its way. A lot of people from Microsoft have over the years created spinoffs that are more like Microsoft proxies, still loyal to Microsoft but peripheral to it. Remember, for instance, who bankrolled Xamarin before it got rolled into Microsoft (as expected). Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.

Tim Greene at IDG props up SourceClear and Black Duck for FOSS FUD; these are two firms that came from Microsoft in order to smear FOSS and make money in the process. The headline says “Open source code is common, potentially dangerous, in enterprise apps” (Ballmer would still say “cancer” as if it’s a fatal disease and Microsoft calls it “Linux infestations" as if it’s a cockroach that must be squashed).

“Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.”Not only did we spot this one some time yesterday; even readers told us about it today; they too are increasingly noticing that anti-FOSS articles are still featuring those parasites that are Microsoft-connected. Greene’s colleague, Korolov, did this just over a fortnight ago. Remember that both are Microsoft-connected firms, as we noted here before, and towards the end there’s a mention of White Source, which is no friend of FOSS.

Those so-called ‘reporters’ just keep speaking to firms which profit from this FUD and aren’t FOSS at all. It’s like an article about global warming which invites for quotes (expert advice) various ‘experts’ from oil companies. The latest example doesn’t speak about the many equivalent (or worse) proprietary software issues, instead speaking of the “Patch Tuesday” of Microsoft, which leaves back doors in tact for the NSA. That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying (by omission). And remember how much money flows from Microsoft to IDG…

“That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying.”Microsoft thinks that somehow associating its proprietary software with “Linux” will be enough to promote the perception that it’s “open” and thus eligible for government use worldwide (proprietary lock-in). At the same time Microsoft keeps attacking Linux.

“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”

Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

03.25.16

IDG Publishes an ‘Ad’ For Black Duck, But it Looks Like an Article and It’s Inflammatory for Hits (Click Bait)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Still stabbing FOSS in the back

A stabbing

Summary: Black Duck, a company that came from a Microsoft guy, continues to generate negative publicity for Free/Open Source software (FOSS) in order to attract business

YESTERDAY afternoon I was sent this bizarre article with a rather bizarre headline. Upon closer inspection it was from IDG and I immediately suspected (based on the headline alone) that Black Duck had something to do with it. It turned out that I was right.

IDG’s Maria Korolov apparently got used by Black Duck for shameless self-promotion, weeks after all that ‘future’ of Open Source PR/publicity stunt [1, 2, 3] (all the articles about it were listed in our daily links without further comment) or the ‘rookies’ stunt [1, 2, 3]. We tried hard to ignore Black Duck, but Black Duck sure isn’t ignoring FOSS. It’s acting like a parasite feeding off FOSS news, in order to sell its proprietary software of course!

“IDG’s Maria Korolov apparently got used by Black Duck for shameless self-promotion…”As usual, Black Duck, a proprietary software company and false prophet for FOSS, interjected itself into articles about FOSS; this yielded FOSS-hostile headlines in IDG, for example “Public concerned about security flaws in government open source code.” (in CSO)

This article contains Black Duck talking points: “In addition, open source code poses two additional security problems, said Mike Pittenger, vice president of security strategy at Black Duck Software. “Open source projects are often ubiquitous, so if there’s a vulnerability it creates a target-rich environment for attackers,” he said.”

“They are trying to sell proprietary software by piggybacking FOSS.”There is also pure marketing there: “Black Duck is currently tracking more than 1.5 million different open source projects, he added.”

Remember the time Black Duck told the media that it can cost $25,000 to fix a bug in FOSS? That was just months ago. Why does the media keep entertaining these propagandists at all? They are trying to sell proprietary software by piggybacking FOSS.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts