The rotting empire resorts to separate desperate measures
Summary: A glimpse at Microsoft’s latest ugly moves against Google, which is a Microsoft Nemesis in the generation of Linux/Android and services
Microsoft seems to have censored Free software which runs on Windows, reveals strong evidence. Microsoft goes further by trying to do that at Google. OpenOffice could be vanished due to a bogus DMCA notice from Microsoft. As put by Swapnil Bhartiya: “Most of the time most open source players including the Apache Foundation provides the software via torrents as it’s a better technology than direct download and these torrents are then shared across the torrent sites. These are legitimate torrents. But NSA friendly Microsoft goes ahead and terminates these links not only from its own Bing, but also from Google and other search engines.
“I think there should be some penalty for sending wrong DMCA notices to discourage the abuse of the already flawed system.”
That’s a tool Microsoft habitually abuses, as we showed before. And as part of the resurrected "Scroogled" campaign Microsoft will try to accuse Google of what Microsoft is doing.
As the above author put it:
If you are a long-term GNULinux user you would love to see Microsoft in this position. IT world and competition has suffered quite a lot under Microsoft’s abusive monopoly which killed many competitors in the bud, before iOS and Android happened.
While Microsoft’s legal team may not miss any opportunity to brag about signing bogus patent deals with Android players over undisclosed (and thus can be assumed bogus) patents, it has no respect for the work of others.
Microsoft’s Windows Phone has a very very tiny market share, and thus it’s not a viable platform for Google or any other player to create any app for Windows Phones. Looking at the popularity of YouTube, Microsoft who never bothered to create any of its apps for GNULinux, went ahead and create its own YouTube app. For the obvious reasons the app did not meet Google’s terms and conditions as it offered a download option (and removed ads) to cut the revenues of hardworking content creators who publish their content on YouTube to monetize from the ads.
Microsoft had agreed to remove the app and the two companies were supposedly working together on the problem (nice to see Microsoft getting the same treatment it’s been giving to Linux for decades).
Microsoft is now excluding Android from apps and also accusing Google of being sloppy on privacy (look who’s talking). The Microsoft-esque PR from Consumer Watchdog seems to have been more bogus than we realised. As Lauren Weinstein’s blog shows, there might be fabrication. Google never said what it’s claimed to have said. As Weinstein put it:
“There was (I like believe) a time when supposedly reputable news-oriented organizations made the effort to try independently verify “news” — at least to the extent of verifying easily available materials — before writing about or republishing items likely to inflame passions and falsely damage reputations.”
We’ve just been treated to another vivid example of this, courtesy (initially) of reliably Google-hating “Consumer Watchdog” and Putin’s propaganda channel “Russia Today (RT).”
This sorry sequence began when Consumer Watchdog breathlessly proclaimed that Google had been caught in a legal brief proclaiming that “Gmail users have no expectation of privacy.” RT picked up the story, and sites that we normally would consider to be reasonably reputable started echoing it without further investigation, playing on the current climate of government surveillance furor (and in many cases, related hyperbolic and unjustified paranoia).
I don’t really expect any better from Consumer Watchdog or Putin’s RT. But it seems reasonable to at least hope for more sense from mainstream news and other websites who portray themselves as accurate sources of information.
This JoinDiaspora discussion about it has AJ saying: “it is kind of sad, that not a single investigative reporter took the time to verify this quote
“the reason i say that is because the actual quote is sufficiently absurd, there was no need to change it ”
Will Hill replies:
Gates gets the press he pays for. Here’s a recent example of analyst and press manipulation. You can get a small glimpse of how big the microsoft controlled press is by reading their training manuals carefully.
the financial analysts particularly carry a lot of weight. We may think that, you know, Christine Comerford and Jesse Burst and other people who write in the Windows magazines are important, but the most important analysts are the guys who work for, like, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and the other financial analysts. … everybody reads PC Week, but the VPs and above, those guys are reading the Goldman Sacks analyst reports. They’re the guys, you know, really making the decisions
There are two kinds of developer conferences. There’s those that are controlled by the platform vendors, such as our PDC. We control everything that goes on there; nobody says nothing that we don’t approve beforehand … At independent conferences, subvert them. Find the people who choose who goes on the agenda and … Just suck up to them so hard your face collapses. I mean, those people…those people are so valuable to you, it’s beyond belief, because they control who goes on that session or not.
There’s lot’s of independent programming journals. You want to infiltrate those. Again, there’s two categories. There’s those that are controlled by vendors; like MSJ; we control that. And there’s those that are independent. The ones that we control, you use. … The ones that third parties control, like the WinTech Journal, you want to infiltrate. You want to get yourself onto the advisory committee that picks out which authors are published and which ones aren’t, or which topics are covered and over these special issues, things like that Just be so helpful that they can’t do without you, and then make sure that things go your way. …that was actually my first claim to fame before I started doing presentations and forming users groups and so forth, was that I was really good on the Internet. And the main thing I did was that I was very formal and polite.
and so on and so forth. Those jerks never quit.
Microsoft, in the mean time, is also using antitrust against Google. Here is a response to this dirty trick:
Microsoft and Nokia protest “price predation” and play at being prey.
Practically, however, predatory pricing turns out to be controversial and difficult to establish. This is particularly true for predatory pricing claims against free software. An alleged predator is highly unlikely to recoup “losses” caused by free distribution, since free software’s four freedoms allow competitors liberal entry into the market. Moreover, free software licenses (including GPLv2 and Apache v2) arm these competitors with the power to redistribute royalty-free, making any alleged effort at monopoly pricing unsustainable.
Of course, Microsoft’s complaint is a bit hypocritical, since the Department of Justice and 20 states accused them of predatory pricing when they distributed Internet Explorer without charge. Recall their response at the time: That a market participant – Netscape – had already set the price for browser technology at zero. Does that sound familiar?
And by their accusations, Nokia displays ignorance about its own history with free and open source software. Speaking about Google at a recent legal conference, Nokia’s head of competition law wondered aloud: “If you make a multi-billion-dollar investment as Google has done in the Android operating system, why would you just give it away?” Presumably Google sought the same benefits as Nokia when Nokia open-sourced its own mobile operating system – Symbian.
The outcome of FairSearch’s request for a Commission investigation is not yet known. What is known is that the benefits of free software – high quality, high value, customizable, low lock-in technologies cooperatively developed, tested, distributed, and improved by an efficient global-scale community marshaled using the latest collaborative Internet tools – ring true with consumers. And these benefits, along with the disruptive business model that brings them to fruition, should identify free software distributors not as price predators, but as embodiments of “maverick firms,” a species of competitor that authorities in both the US and the EU seek to protect, not punish.
Hopefully the Commission will view free software the way consumers do and reject FairSearch’s complaint.
FairSearch is just a Microsoft proxy, one of many. We have already analysed the roots of “FairSearch” and “Consumer Watchdog” (deceiving names) before. █
Send this to a friend
The privacy laws apply only to Google, claims Microsoft
Summary: Some new lies from Microsoft against Google and also apparent AstroTurf against Google in court
Microsoft, the NSA’s best friend, loses to Google on many fronts including office suites and operating systems. Google has done what many companies could not do because of Microsoft corruption (there are antitrust cases and other lawsuits shedding light on this). Right now Microsoft is resurrecting a hypocritical "Scoogled" campaign, which is factually flawed. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols explains yet another reason for this hypocrisy:
Talk about having things both ways! A few months ago in its “Scroogled” ad campaign, Microsoft was complaining about how Google uses your search terms and Gmail contents to deliver targeted ads. Now, Microsoft is touting how Windows 8.1 uses your search terms to deliver targeted ads, even when you’re doing searches on local drives.
Do people at Microsoft ever talk to anyone outside their own groups? Does the Bing team need to be introduced to the Scroogled team? Scroogled? How about Bing-Bang-Bungled?
Microsoft is also censoring competition in the results — an accusation it habitually throws Google’s way. Microsoft is the same if not worse, yet scrutiny is only being directed towards Google. Recall Microsoft’s antitrust complaints against Google (over operating systems). How dare Microsoft do this given its own status? Watch how Consumer Watchdog, which seems to be tied to Microsoft, smears Google right now. From the press:
Google has made it clear that people who send or receive email via Gmail should not expect their messages to remain private.
Critics call revelation ‘a stunning admission’ as Google makes claim in court filing in attempt to head off class action lawsuit
Seemingly a Microsoft AstroTurfing front which is connected to Edelman, a Microsoft PR ally, this ‘watchdog’ perpetually ignores Microsoft’s violations. It is never doing anything at all regarding Microsoft. That’s rather revealing. █
Send this to a friend
National Security Operations Center
Summary: The biggest source of SPAM (Windows) and privacy violations (Windows and Microsoft services) throws accusations of spam and privacy violations by Google
Thanks to Edward Snowden we now know a lot more about the NSA’s liaisons with Microsoft. Microsoft can no longer accuse Google of privacy violations with a straight face, can it? So what happens to the Scroogled PR campaign, which reportedly made another comeback? The Inquirer reports:
MARKETING GENIUSES in Redmond must be spinning in their chairs and high-fiving, having launched Microsoft’s latest anti-Google “scroogled” campaign.
This time around the Google Scroogle relates to emails and spam. “Google spams your inbox with ads that look like real emails,” it hollers.
“Google violates your privacy by reading every single word of every single email sent to and from Gmail accounts so they can better target you with ads. Now, they’re going one step further over the line by using that same personal information to spam your inbox with ads that look like real emails,” said the accompanying marketing information.
First of all, Microsoft lets the NSA hijack entire systems of over a billion people. So don’t tell us about privacy, Microsoft. It also lets the NSA eavesdrop on Skype and much of its server-based business (Azure, E-mail, and so on).
Secondly, Microsoft is the number one cause of SPAM (last pointed out a couple of days ago), so who the heck at Microsoft has the nerve to accuse Google of ‘spam’? Google is mostly a victim of this Windows-spewed SPAM.
Microsoft’s main product these days is surveillance/dossiers on people and of course a slew of abominable lies, such as the above. Shun Microsoft like you would shun an oppressive regime, which is what Microsoft is secretly advancing (while publicly pretending to pursue the opposite). Recall what Microsoft did in Russia. █
Send this to a friend
Microsoft propagandists speak out of their bottom part
Summary: Claims that Microsoft makes billions of dollars from Android not supported by any concrete evidence, just conjecture from messengers of Microsoft agenda
There is some new chatter about Android tax and I only found it in two sources (I did not look deep enough), which raise suspicion that Microsoft is seeding the message. Why? Because Microsoft boosters, those who work closely with Microsoft, are disseminating it. This is a familiar pattern, seen in particular with Florian Müller.
We don’t really know the financial terms of patent deals involving Android. There might be no money changing hands at all. Microsoft has not even given real numbers, it is just making them up [1, 2, 3] to create FUD (deterrence against Android adoption), or relying on others who make them up.
The latest provocation/trolling by Microsoft booster Gavin Clarke says:
In its latest SEC filing, Microsoft said Windows Phone revenue increased by $1.2bn in the year to 30 June, 2013.
But that number included an increase in “patent licensing revenue” in addition to sales of Windows Phone licences.
How does this compare to last year? It’s difficult to say, because Microsoft is not consistent in the numbers it breaks out – cherry-picking the best, burying the worst.
Another Microsoft booster, Todd Bishop, uses an even more inflammatory headline:
The number reflects “an increase in patent licensing revenue and sales of Windows Phone licenses,” the filing says.
Microsoft has been cheating on its finances for decades, so nothing can be inferred from the above.
“They ask to see the real numbers someday,” wrote Pamela Jones. “I’d like to see the patents. If they are as invalid and unwanted as the ones Microsoft tried to bully Barnes and Noble into paying for, it would mean this is a hustle, not a business. As in, “Nice business you have here. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”
Vista 8 is called a “flop” even by notable Microsoft investors, so Microsoft increasingly relies on taxing the competition; whether it succeeds or not we don’t know. We should discard speculation from Microsoft boosters.
Speaking of tax, Microsoft’s shared proxy MPEG-LA is now suing Motorola (Google/Android/VP8) over compression:
Back in June, we alerted you to a number of infringement suits brought by licensors to the MPEG LA ATSC patent pool in the Southern District of Florida, targeting several television manufacturers — ViewSonic, Craig Electronics, and Curtis International. Yesterday, a different group of MPEG LA licensors filed suit on patents related to a different MPEG LA patent pool (relating the MPEG-2 video compression standard), but most of the defendants include those targeted in the earlier suits. This could raise speculation that MPEG LA (through its licensees) is becoming more apt to bring enforcement actions to “encourage” technology companies to become licensees to its various patent pools.
It says that the plaintiffs “include Mitsubishi, Philips, General Electric, Thomson Licensing, Panasonic, and Sony,” but let’s not forget Apple’s and Microsoft’s dispute against Motorola over FRAND. This seems like patent stacking, that’s all. █
Send this to a friend
“Mind Control: To control mental output you have to control mental input. Take control of the channels by which developers receive information, then they can only think about the things you tell them. Thus, you control mindshare!”
–Microsoft, internal document
Nick Kolakowski, Microsoft’s mole in Slashdot (photo from Brooklyn Arts Council)
Summary: An apparent scandal revolving around traffic management in Slashdot and the role played by Nick Kolakowski, a longtime Microsoft booster who recently joined Slashdot and is now trashing Linux in that site while promoting Microsoft
“Apparently the system is getting gamed heavily,” wrote iophk. “Here is one example [from Slashdot],” he adds, noting what seems like AstroTurfing in comments about Slashdot staff.
Microsoft Nick is in a scandal already, having joined the site as staff to deliver Microsoft talking points. To quote one comment:
On page 2 [slashdot.org] of Velcroman1′s slashdot profile Nerval’s Lobster (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) submissions start to show up. We’ve [slashdot.org] already [slashdot.org] established [slashdot.org] that Nerval’s Lobster is Nick Kolakowski, a slashdot employee submitting paid content as user-submitted stories…
It would be interesting to see what percentage of published slashdot stories are genuinely submitted by people who have no financial interest in the submission.
Nick Kolakowski, aka Microsoft Nick, is up to no good. That’s how Microsoft boosters roll.
One former editor of Slashdot told me quite privately that the site had been infiltrated by PR before he left. This still appears to be the case and it is eating away any credibility the site earned over a decade ago (back when the site had news, not noise).
A few hours ago I found a response to yet more anti-Linux rhetoric, this time titled “Forget Apple: Samsung Could Be Google’s Next Big Rival” (familiar talking point!).
Swapnil Bhartiya, who wrote the response, does not seem to know he is responding to Microsoft Nick, who has years of reputation of spouting out Microsoft talking points, essentially filling the Web with garbage Microsoft would love to pay for (we covered dozens of examples from him).
Bhartiya writes: “Slashdot posted a story “Forget Apple: Samsung Could Be Google’s Next Big Rival”. The story idea has floated for a while and pops up every now and then. Is there really any space for rivalry between Samsung and Google? I looked at each point raised by the author and analyzed it.”
The idea has “floated for a while” because it’s an anti-Android talking point regularly to be found in the pro-Microsoft papers or Microsoft lobbyists. They try to cause division in the leading Linux-based operating system by urging the leader of the pack to fracture and defect, just like Nokia (post-occupation). Bhartiya adds: “In my observation of the industry for a while I see many reasons why it makes no sense for Samsung to ‘compete’ with Google. There are actually more reasons for Samsung to stick to Android as a Google partner than spin its own fork.”
Bhartiya’s closing words are as follows: “I think Samsung will continue to strengthen its Android line of hardware. Let me break news to the author. Samsung recently launched Android powered digital cameras. If Sammy had any desire to drift away from Google the would have put their own OS/ecosystem instead of Google’s. So it clearly shows there is no seeds of rivalry between the two companies. The Microsoft/Apple camp will definitely want to spread the FUD as if there is.”
Slashdot, by allowing this embedding ‘journalism’ in its tech publication (with a known Microsoft booster), is throwing its reputation in the garbage can and letting its community leak down the drain. Will Hill, who used to frequently post in Slashdot, had this to say earlier today about Microsoft “injecting” its FUD into the press:
How to Manage Your Free Community
Microsoft spends billions of dollars every year on propaganda to confuse the public. They especially target the tech press, OEMs and developers. Their training manuals call for “infiltration” and “subversion” though false concern called “schmoozing”. Everyone is considered a “pawn” to be exploited to advance Microsoft. They particularly like name calling and the wasting people’s time by “injecting Microsoft” into forums and conferences. To really understand what you are up against read their training manual, Evangelism is War and associated lecture notes several times. It is so evil and so alien that you won’t be able to grasp it the first or second time you read it.
Fighting with these turkeys is a waste of time. Just be careful to curate your forums and software carefully. PJ of Groklaw has written about how to do that. Roy Schestowitz has another method for Techrights. He leaves all the troll comments up for everyone to see and has accumulated an amazing collection of abusive comments. The approaches are complementary. What matters is to keep doing what you do and not let the trolls waste your life.
Vanity Fair recently did an expose of how damaging this toxic culture was to Microsoft itself. We should not be surprised that the anti-social ethics of non free software and exploitation should destroy those who advocate it. Non free software only served it’s owners and that owner turns out to be one person, Bill Gates, who set everyone else on a Darwinian roller coaster for his own benefit.
If Slashdot does not put an end to its Microsoft AstorTurfing (the above is not the first from Microsoft Nick), then we’ll slam the site time after time, calling it out for being just a cogwheel of Microsoft, essentially a PR vehicle like Microsoft Watch after Microsoft Nick took over (it became strongly and consistently pro-Microsoft). █
Send this to a friend
How about a hot cup of FUD?
Summary: An apparent attempt by Microsoft boosters to crash the highly-anticipated launch event of Ubuntu hardware
Former Microsoft employee Zack Whittaker, who has a reputation for saying nonsense, spread FUD about Ubuntu Forums in order to heighten and increase the fear. Rather than feed the FUD let’s just say that some proprietary software which Canonical has been using got cracked. But what level of media exposure does this deserve given the abundance of such stories (tens or hundreds of thousands of sites get cracked every day)? Zack hardly covers anything FOSS; he has been busy defending his former employer, Microsoft, from antitrust regulators, as we noted numerous times. He was the first with access to a media platform through which to write an article about a negative Ubuntu occurence, before Monday even!
CBS‘s ZDNet rarely publishes anything in the weekend, but Microsoft Zack’s piece was published on Sunday. This is an effective way to distract from Ubuntu’s big announcement today (please don’t click this link, it is for future reference only).
I may not be a fan of Ubuntu anymore, but its phones and tablets ambitions/projects really fascinate me. It brings GNU to decent hardware and it is not expected to be locked down like Android (WebOS, Sailfish. Firefox OS, Tizen and Vivaldi have potential and are Linux-powered also). So today’s announcement is important and it comes just days after Microsoft collapsed, partly owing to the failure of Surface. Microsoft sure would love to distract from Canonical’s big day in the press, occupying the media with bad news about Ubuntu. Canonical has gotten some industry partners and it is looking for more right now. It’s good timing, too,
Vista 8 is so widely rejected/hated by so many that OEMs are exploring alternatives to Windows. The Vista 8.1 nonsense won’t change their mind because it is fundamentally “stupid” just like Vista 8. As one blogger put it some weeks ago: “Windows 8 was an attempt by Microsoft to change the way PC users use their PC. According to them, touch screen, is the wave of the future, and everyone should embrace it. While touch screens are a great way to ACCESS content on a TABLET. Nothing can beat CREATING content on a PC like the keyboard and mouse, and everybody knows this! Windows 8 has been by every definition, a failure because of this truth.”
Here is where Microsoft stands right now:
When it comes to Surface RT and Pro tablet sales, Microsoft (MSFT) PR has lost all credibility. Why’s that? Just look at Microsoft’s statements about special Surface RT price discounts and sales on July 15 — and then fast forward to July 18, when the software giant said it’s taking a $900 million writeoff for the Surface RT tablet failure. Here’s the update.
As you may recall, Microsoft started slashing Surface RT prices by roughly 30 percent about a week ago. The media sensed that sales of the low-end tablet were bombing. But Microsoft put its best spin on the story, offering this quote to The Wall Street Journal on July 15:
“We’ve been seeing great success with pricing and cover promotions over the past several months on Surface RT in the U.S. and other markets. People who buy Surface love Surface, and we’re excited about all those additional people out sharing their excitement for Surface with other people.”
Some years ago there was a perception that if you support GNU/Linux nobody will buy hardware from you, whereas now Microsoft is in this position (Nokia being one example of several, large PC OEMs being others). It’s Android that’s increasingly perceived as the winner, but Canonical built sufficient brand recognition around Ubuntu and it can actually pull off a hit. Don’t let Microsoft or its minion distract journalists right now,
According to reports like this, Microsoft has been trying to hide just how much of a mess it’s in. ValueAct Capital Management LP wants to grab board seats and maybe the CEO will get ousted some time soon. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Microsoft proxies or offshoots are not managing to keep their cover and legitimate figures in the Free software world end up ostracising these
TECHRIGHTS recently wrote about the latest FUD from Black Duck, which has its roots in a person from Microsoft. Bruce Perens said that more people should call out this firm for its dubious claims about the GPL and now we see Simon Phipps, the president of the OSI, speaking about the problem. To quote:
So the real risk is much smaller than the headline numbers suggest. In all this, I can’t help feeling Black Duck want us to be afraid. It’s very important that Github takes its responsibilities seriously, and their new improvements show they are starting to do so. But the headline “60% of open source is dangerous” number from Black Duck, together with the “77% of Github is dangerous” number, seem over stated. Given their business model is to apply reassuring consulting and tools to corporate fears about open source, maybe that’s not surprising. But it’s regrettable.
Open source software is all about developers being able to achieve sufficient certainty to collaborate without the need to spend money on legal advice. OSI’s approved licenses deliver that, and the vast majority of active open source projects have this topic sorted. While Github’s laissez faire attitude to date has led to a good deal of inconvenience identifying the license in use for projects there, as well as pandering to the anti-bureaucratic instincts of the newer generation of developers, it’s now being sorted and it never rose to the level of a crisis for most people.
It must have been frustrating for Black Duck to have the PR spin on their new product thwarted by Github; I just wish they had responded by toning down the “danger, danger” message. Open source has a lower compliance burden than proprietary software and its endless, custom EULAs and developer licenses. Let’s shout that message, for a change.
Not too long ago Phipps also chastised a Microsoft proxy called Microsoft 'Open' Technologies.
After all the GPL fear that was spread by Black Duck it is too hard to believe anything it says. Black Duck was also honouring Microsoft with 'open source' awards (lending legitimacy with mere words and hype), not disclosing that it had a Microsoft business partnership and also a strong Microsoft connection (the firm’s founder) since its inception. The thing to remember about Black Duck is, they’re not selling FOSS or even any valuable information, just FUD and proprietary software. Moreover, they deserve no mercy or the benefit of the doubt (as there is doubt no more and the doubt only ever comes from them, along with fear and uncertainty about using FOSS code).
Yes, how profoundly ‘open source’. As long as the rest is all proprietary, everywhere else inside the stack… █
Send this to a friend
“There’s free software and then there’s open source… there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
–Bill Gates, April 2008
“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
Summary: The ongoing war by Microsoft and its proxies against software freedom, which gives more value to the world’s industry than the FUD would have people believe
There is another reason to abandon the term “Open Source”, which left the term “Free software” more vulnerable to abuse by bad people, makers of proprietary software. Here is Bill Gates’ latest attempt to run over Free/libre software, characterising his trap as “free”. To quote a Romanian site:
Bill Gates had a very interesting opening keynote speech at the Microsoft Research Faculty Summit 2013, explaining that he was grateful for the existence of free software, when asked about patents and their influence on technology.
“Thank God for commercial software. It actually funds salaries, gives people jobs. And thank God for free software, it lets people get things out there, you can play around, build on. The two work very well in an ecosystem,” stated Bill Gates during the Q&A.
This is nonsense, as anybody with a clue knows that commercial means not proprietary and Free/libre can be used commercially, paying wages to users and developers.
A lot of this kind of attacks on Free software usually goes back to Microsoft and its proxies. Right now we have Black Duck, a company created by a marketing guy from Microsoft, throwing around some numbers, looking for sites that will print them. Here is one:
Open source consulting firm BlackDuck says up to $59 billion may be locked up in open source projects with no explicit license. Is that lost revenue for channel partners and software companies?
Here is the press release. What nonsense. Trying to quantify code in terms of revenue is not the only silliness; it is the idea that money is being lost as a result of having no licence. Similar propaganda was previously used to describe FOSS as a jobs destroyer, as if people are writing software with such aims. Some tried to portray FOSS as a cause for losses in the industry, not a saver of money and elevator of productivity (which in turn makes room for more hirings per given budget). This is the type of propaganda we are up against and we keep seeing it brought up also in public talks.
Here is another new example of Black Duck being used to reinforce FUD — namely the idea that Free software is about cost, not freedom, and that it is chosen for price, not other qualities. Watch how the Black Duck-run Future of Open Source survey [1, 2, 3, 4] is being used to spread misconceptions. This new FOSS-hostile article (“The Hidden Cost of Free”) says: “Bottom line, open source may be “eating the software world,” but not all of it. For ISVs and other software development professionals, open source is a no-brainer. We use it in development and in our commercial products wherever and whenever it makes sense. It is free, after all, and the quality is second to none, as this year’s Future of Open Source survey reinforces.”
Black Duck reinforces all sorts of proprietary software talking points. Black Duck is, after all, a proprietary software company.
“This is the type of propaganda we are up against and we keep seeing it brought up also in public talks.”Speaking of FUD against FOSS, the latest Android security fear-mongering comes from a Microsoft partner created and managed by a Microsoft guy (who hopes to turn Android perceptions into Windows perceptions when it comes to security). To quote the company’s description: “He is also a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) in Visual Developer Security, a frequent speaker, press resource, and is featured regularly in the Associated Press and global security media.”
“Bluebox was founded in mid-2012,” it says, and it was groomed by the Gartner Group (currently fully dedicated to Android FUD and monetisation attempts, akin to Black Duck).
The war on FOSS is very real and Microsoft partners are trying to remove the F from FOSS or altogether make it proprietary. A few days ago we showed how three Micrososft-controlled entities threw around (or under the bus) and blurred out the FOSS identity of Zimbra (here is more on that); we should also pay attention to the hallmark of effective FOSS FUD because it’s quite consistent. As explained a week ago by Eben Moglen at the EU Parliament, the GPL brought enormous value to the industry, more so than Apple and Microsoft combined. Unfortunately the video is only on YouTube, hence embedded below.
Will politicians ‘get’ it? █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »