01.23.23
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 5:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation is reducing its focus on Linux and is instead busy promoting Microsoft, Facebook, and other interests that GNU/Linux users strongly dislike
AS per today’s puff piece, as Facebook is failing it’s openwashing time at the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation; recently, this corrupt organisation (whose leaders seem to be dying young and very frequently) set up a front for Microsoft and for Microsoft ally Facebook, in order to help them compete with Google.
Zemlin has auctioned Linux. He put the brand on sale. He sold several seats to Microsoft and several seats to Facebook. The Board (and the bosses of Linus Torvalds) now works for interests that aren't Linux. Some are openly anti-Linux.
Lunduke, a former Microsoft employee, isn’t happy about this. The other day he noted that “Linux Foundation decreased Linux spending to 3.2% in 2022.”
“Need it be mentioned that this foundation is connected to securities fraud?”To quote: “I’m not going to sugar coat this… it is absolutely ridiculous. The highlight? Funding for the Linux kernel, in 2022, dropped to a measly 3.2% of the foundation’s total revenue of $243 Million dollars. Down from the — already absurdly low — 3.4% from 2021. Considering the name of the foundation… that is, needless to say, highly amusing. Or infuriating. Possibly concerning. Likely all three. Let’s dive into the details and try to figure out why this is happening.”
In another post on this subject he said “Linux Foundation, bored with Linux, launches Open Metaverse Foundation” (some people came to IRC to tell us about this absurdity, which we had seen already).
To quote: “In 2021, The Linux Foundation decided to branch out from their core business (“Linux”) to create an entire foundation focused on “Health” and, specifically, creating vaccine passports. Was it weird that The Linux Foundation was now in the vaccine business? Yes. Yes, it was. Well, it appears that someone has dared Jim Zemlin — the head of The Linux Foundation — to keep making new projects and sub-foundations that make absolutely no sense. Perhaps, even, double-dog dared him. Because yesterday — January 18th, 2023 — The Linux Foundation unveiled their latest attempt to do absolutely anything other than Linux. For that matter, will “The Linux Foundation” keep their name? How long before they re-brand… removing the word “Linux” entirely?”
What’s noteworthy here is that more people speak about the corruption of the ‘Linux’ Foundation and along with it… the Linux brand. Need it be mentioned that this foundation is connected to securities fraud? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.16.23
Posted in Deception, DRM, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Kernel, Microsoft at 8:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Moments ago:
Summary: It has become more than “abundantly clear” that Matthew Garrett is a de facto Microsoft mole inside Linux. Sad that not everyone can see this yet. He said he would be leaving the kernel alone (after he had attacked Linus Torvalds in vain, repeatedly, having done the same to Richard Stallman using false pretexts), but of course he lied. He would come back only to push more of Microsoft’s attacks into Linux. Just see the comments here; they do a better job than Michael Larabel (AMD shill), explaining why Pluton is a disaster and merely a rename of a truly sinister agenda.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.18.22
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 12:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum e76bf04a018fc14e649df5eb0f66efc4
LF Monopolies
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: The Linux Foundation continues to privatise the Commons or basically turn community-developed work into corporate “assets”
THE vast majority of the public does not understand that “Linux Foundation” has very little to do with Linux (a very minuscule portion of its budget is in fact devoted to Linux). Put another way, Linux Foundation just exploits the powerful Linux brand to sell its openwashing (PR) services.
The Linux Foundation is hardly new to us. We’ve been covering it since its birth in 2007 (not 2000 as Wikipedia erroneously claims) and wrote about 500 articles about it. In more recent years things got a lot worse. The Foundation was actively helping Microsoft against Linux and against activists for patent reform (e.g. abolishing software patents). This Foundation is financially connected to Microsoft also through the Zemlin family, which engages in fraud [1, 2, 3].
Over the past couple of days we’ve gathered nearly a dozen headlines and articles about a new Microsoft-, Facebook-, and Amazon-led front group. It’s being falsely described in the media as “Linux” and TomTom is only sometimes mentioned as a participant. The “journalism” about this has been so shallow (it boils down to parroting really) that it can easily qualify as misinformation, as the video above explains. As Ryan said in IRC a few moments ago (in reference to this shoddy ‘journalism’): “An operating system kernel teams up with its partners to kill Google Maps!” MinceR said that “someone suggested that this might be aimed at killing OSM [OpenStreetMap] [...] knowing the “Linux” Foundation, it sounds entirely plausible.” He called it “Alliance of Monopolists in the Defense of Monopoly”.
A rename of the Linux Foundation is long overdue. The same is true for FSFE.
“The “journalism” about this has been so shallow (it boils down to parroting really) that it can easily qualify as misinformation, as the video above explains.”The video reminds people what the OSI’s cofounder Bruce Perens said about the Linux Foundation — a trade association that shuns the community (people who built GNU/Linux) whilst proactively wooing Microsoft.
Nowadays, in this age of “Microsoft loves Linux” (lie) the misinformation writes itself and then reposts itself across the Web. We’ve found many headlines that say “Linux” instead of Linux Foundation and we need “to correct those headlines,” an associate has remarked. “The Linux Foundation, despite the name, does not represent or advance Linux but instead represents corporate interests inside Linux. It has had a hostile, antagonistic relation with the community since disposing of community representation back in 2016,” this associate has noted. It “then gave a voice to Linux’s most aggressive competitor *on the board of directors*” (we covered this before). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.13.22
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 9:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
He has done this many times in the past, as occasionally documented in our wiki
Shown above is the current headline and the previous headline (that we captured in Daily Links yesterday)
Summary: ZDNet covered a banal Linux release using unnecessary drama from Liam Tung (taking about a future release in an overly sensationalist fashion for FUD’s worth). The original headline was hostile: “Linux 6.1 stable lands as Linus Torvalds frets over a frantic pre-holidays 6.2 merge”; but they’ve since changed the title to “Open source: Linux 6.1 stable lands, here’s what you need to know”; Microsoft’s longterm media mole, Liam Tung, uses a negative twist to cover a Linux release. As usual in his case. ZDNet just cannot help trolling releases of Linux. There has been much coverage about the release, but this one was by far the worst, especially the original headline.
THIS may be difficult to dissect due to a lack of transparency (ZDNet does not publish IRC logs or equivalent/s), but maybe the editor stepped in or someone complained (we did within hours), whereupon they belatedly rectified only the clickbait headline.
Liam Tung’s anti-Linux FUD isn’t unprecedented to say the least; most of his ‘articles’ are/were Microsoft ads. He really should stay out of covering Linux because he works for a company that hates and attacks Linux. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.14.22
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 2:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 9ba1a626422cdfb106fd96a2e006bf1a
Linux Revisionism
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: Free-as-in-freedom software is more important than ever before; when companies like Intel speak about “Linux”, however, what they have in mind is UEFI and Microsoft remotely controlling it (akin to a back door)
THIS morning we had clipped and then shared a new Linus Torvalds video where he avoids talking about Software Freedom and instead speaks of “Open Source” in reference to an era that predates that term by as much as 7 years.
“Software Freedom is crucial and it is being crushed along with general-purpose and/or open-ended devices (programmable, configurable computers).”Just over a decade ago Torvalds made it crystal clear that choosing the GPL (copyleft) was one of the most important decisions he had made. This is why GNU/Linux succeeded. Of course Torvalds does not like to talk much about GNU, either. That sort of changes how people understand history — a subject also remarked on in the video above.
Software Freedom is crucial and it is being crushed along with general-purpose and/or open-ended devices (programmable, configurable computers). Git is being attacked by GitHub (proprietary and Microsoft-controlled) along with the software that’s in there; that too is under attack and Microsoft has just been sued for the GPL violation it is not only facilitating but actively encouraging for profit.
The way we see it, Torvalds ought to speak more about Software Freedom; we don’t expect him to do so (the Linux Foundation probably wouldn’t permit this either), so instead we might see Linux becoming a legacy brand. As an associate put it today: “It’s rather important to note that Torvalds still refers to freedom and reciprocity despite using the phrase “open source”. So while he is definitely for backing the f-word [freedom] up with deeds, he remains very reluctant to say it out loud.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Interview, Kernel at 5:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum d99b2125bc3620f8abe7bbd14f4804c5
Summary: Uploaded less than 2 weeks ago was this video (3:20-3:56 above) that coincided with a marketing charade of Intel
Transcript:
[00:00] Linus Torvalds: and so what happened was I was still pretty proud of what I started. So I put it out and it wasn’t really initially about Open Source, for me. Intially it was more like, hey ,look at what I’ve done. Right. Kind of. This is kind of cool, this is kind of interesting, maybe somebody else is interested, and that completely changed everything. And that’s, I went from being kind of knowing about open source to being
[00:30] Linus Torvalds: completely convinced this is the only way I ever want to do it. That was my lightbulb moment.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.25.22
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 7:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Related: Microsoft is Trying to Hire (Read: Pay Salaries to) Matthew Garrett
Summary: Microsoft’s Lennart Poettering didn’t take long to show his true colours… (and agenda)
AS just noted in Daily Links (or here), Lennart Poettering is being bossed by the NSA’s foremost tentacle (Microsoft) and he acts accordingly. He says “I would go as far as saying that SecureBoot on Linux distributions is mostly security theater at this point, if you so will.” (It is in general the case, not just in Linux)
But he wishes to go further with the security theater.
Although LWN lacks comments on this matter and Phoronix is, as usual, just Microsoft-friendly fluff these days, we need to examine comments in Phoronix. Here are some:
And of course, the UKI must include systemd, that will take over as a UEFI payload and control everything in the system!
Responding to the above:
Next year’s new systemd plugin, same old story.
More:
Great. Some of the reasons I can’t stand Windows.
How about no, especially if it makes it harder to build your own kernels or to make changes to the initrd
Responding to the above:
That’s the fly in the ointment. The whole trusted boot and execution system requires end users to be able to load their own keys into the UEFI boot key store. Not all hardware allows that. For that matter not all PC hardware even allows for it. The only way this works is if there’s some way to require OEMs to allow third party keys other than those signed by a megacorp. Apple and Microsoft will fight that with every dirty trick, lawsuit, and just plain underhandedness they can – and not enough users will even notice to bother to protest – so it’s unlikely there would be any effective regulatory process to stop it. Think of the kids. Think of the corporate bottom lines. Think of national security. Think of…
To which the reply was:
That is not enough — if there is a way to enroll user keys, evil maid can use it to inject her own. There are some solutions, but they are super complex in comparison to just fuse corpo-keys. Anyhow, all this requires user to fully trust the motherboard firmware, which is not verifiable.
More:
No, thanks. I’ll opt to continue configuring and building my kernels (and initramfs) locally. Unsigned, very true. Trusted by …. me
And yes, running an OpenRC system here.
Bureaucracy has arrived at Linux. Every bit needs a form and a signature before it can be flipped.
This is ridiculious. Securtity has nothing to do with signing if there is not trust in that chain.
You must trust the parties involved in signing – and in case of Microsoft one would be crazy to trust it (we got lots of proofs).
All those pseudo security features made the computers much less trust worthy – using minix to spy on users (Intel) – the stupid
boot signatures which are more for making GNU/Linux more inconvenient or broken than making anything more secure.
And the big binary monster of systemd may be nice to improve boot time and avoid race conditions, but the killing of processes
and other things configuered in disguise does not make the situation better but much worse.
Trust comes if you understand your system – and if other use reasonable defaults.
Init scripts were easy – systemd is a monster in comparison.
So while not against a trusted boot process in general, the authority must be trustworthy – and I am not aware of anything
which would provide the necessary level of trust.
And if big companies are involved it comes with a necessity of matching agendas – and not concerning security but more to the contrary.
So this is just a Trojan Horse … and a realy obvious one.
Bureaucracy came to Linux decades ago.
No, it was optional and so has not arrived, but was only lurking in the shadow. A bit like you.
The way I see it is this corporate FUD – the type of features corporations create when they have become too large to fail, and need to trick customers to get them to believe they need something they do not. And who is he working for now? Right, Microsoft … I did not need a secure boot process in 25 years and I did not need Microsoft, and this is not going to change.
And?
It’s generated locally which makes it 1000 time more trusted than being generated remotely by who knows on what server run by who knows who!
Why the fuck would I want it to be built and signed by someone who I don’t know and trust?
Lennart, get lost with your Microsoft infested ideas that can only think on how to infest more computers with its spyware!
From all the employers you couldn’t work for another one?
I’m starting to feel more and more disgusted about this attitude and thinking that we are so stupid to want thing built by somebody else, especially by Microsoft!
Reply:
If it’s reproducible, it kinda doesn’t matter who signs it. If it also makes it 1000x harder for anyone to sign images that aren’t reproducible, then most end-users have avoided plethora of attacks – quite unattainable for malware makers and most bad actors.
I’m starting to feel more and more annoyed how I can’t give regular people an hardened Linux setup resistant to most ab- and misuse. All because of some pointless feet-dragging all while the actual threats to computing freedom fly past unnoticed.
More:
You are simply not save from mega corporations. They will try to cash in on every bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt you may have. They want you to need them and to buy from them. First they tell you it is ‘locally generated’, then it is ‘generated’, and then to best buy it from them for a price…
Uhu, so we all need to pay someone else to give us a f* rng nft: “hey daddy, can you please sign my initrd?, here are some bucks for your efforts”, to use whenever it actually matters because, yes, I bet everyone would be able to sign their own stuff, but of course, we would need certified signatures from some megacorp *cough, Microsoft, cough* to use our own things anywhere outside our home lab.
We have seen this sh* with secure boot or web certificates to name two from the top of my mind; good intentions on paper, implementation faulted by design to maximize profit for a selected few.
I have not lost time or work to an attack which would be hindered by secure boot and don’t know anyone else who has either. I have repaired and recovered data from computers for myself and others by booting external media of my own contrivance. I gain substantial benefit from external media Linux installations where my usb stick or SSD carries a useful environment to most any machine.
I see zero benefit, only pain as the boot process gets locked down like a cell phone, game console or Windows. It is about security, not user security, not my security, not your security. Who is Lennart working for now? Who is putting up the money? There is a good place to start looking.
“How on earth that now would work” you say… So you do not know and have got no idea. At least are you not hiding your ignorance. You must think all this encryption can be disabled or worked around easily. It is like you expect nightclubs to have two entrances, one with a bouncer and one without, where you can choose one or the other in case the bouncer does not let you in. You seem to be missing the basic principle here. It has to be mandatory at every link and layer, or it will be as weak as the weakest point. So it is either a useless feature or a guaranteed source of trouble for admins and anyone who wants their freedom.
Seems like this is the biggest problem: Asshole vendors that don’t allow the user to sign their own shit. Funny how the whole “Trust” issue requires me to trust corporations who have done the wrong things in the past that hire people I’ve never met and vetted that run closed source code that isn’t audited or vetted by a greater community at large.
Am I the weird one for thinking that I don’t like being forced to trust them and that it’s fucked up that I’m not allowed to trust myself or those that I deem trustworthy? I feel like the phrase “Protect and Serve” comes to mind.
Since you’re at Microsoft, how about getting them to flex their muscles into strong-arming vendors and BIOS makers into making a method that allows the user to add their own keys so the initrd can be added to the secure chain and mitigate all the systmed madness…Or have you taken too many Soma Tabs, Linus.
Systemd is great, but it doesn’t have to be the solution to every problem. It can be A solution, but it sucks when it’s THE solution.
Ah yes, another dubious “security feature” that is just another thinly veiled excuse for big corpos to control the open source ecosystem.
Never forget “Embrace, extend, and extinguish”!
Is Lennart Poettering the Klaus Schwab of linux world? Honest question.
There will be more to come for sure. Maybe even a bunch of Microsoft AstroTurfers. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA