Even the GPL is no longer favoured (it is about Azure, not freedom)
Summary: A rough timeline of Microsoft’s interactions with Linux and the Linux Foundation since 2015
“There’s no company called Linux, there’s barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it’s free.”
–Steve Ballmer
The greenwashing efforts (as seen earlier this month in shallow ‘media’ that’s nowadays more like a glorified PR apparatus) are a cynical ploy at best
Summary: Microsoft (connected to oil companies) wants us to think of it as a “green” company; not only does it contribute to climate denial but it also evades tax, which is a serious crime that costs tens of billions of dollars (the public pays this money instead)
WE have been covering Microsoft here since 2006 (I had written a lot more about it since the 1990s). It’s no secret that Microsoft lies a lot about a lot of things, including its stance on the environment (we recently published "Microsoft is a Market Leader in Lying and Corruption"). Remember that both Microsoft and Bill Gates financially backed ALEC, as we noted here a long time ago. Microsoft subsidises big polluters and Bill Gates is best friends with them.
Over a decade ago we wrote about ALEC, about BP, and a lot about other environmental concerns. Microsoft very often shows up as a major facilitator. Recently there was whistleblowing at Microsoft about its close relationship with oil companies that drill the seas and cause unbelievable environmental damage.
“The people at Microsoft sometimes believe these lies! They’re not too bright, it’s like a cult to them.”Wouldn’t Microsoft want and even need a distraction from all this?
Notice how the media is nowadays painting Microsoft as “fighting patent trolls” (Microsoft passes to them lots of USPTO- and EPO-granted patents in order to attack Linux by proxy), painting Microsoft as protective of children (because Gates is closely connected to pedophilia on several levels), and saying that Microsoft is infatuated with minorities and women (the opposite is true, based on the track record and lawsuits). They keep telling us that Microsoft is “in love” with what it’s constantly attacking in a variety of ways, e.g. GNU/Linux. The people at Microsoft sometimes believe these lies! They’re not too bright, it’s like a cult to them. This cult gives them salaries. Microsoft management or the company as a whole keeps calling itself 'Open Source company' while it is actively attacking Open Source, e.g. through GitHub, which is proprietary (Microsoft is then bribing the critics at GitHub, based on admissions they publicly make in Twitter).
As one GNU/Linux developer put it this week: “I’ll believe “Microsoft loves Linux” when I see them support desktop Linux. For now it’s very self-serving and entirely when is convenient. It doesn’t count as an investment. It looks like just PR so it doesn’t show that they’re being dragged by the market, kicking and screaming.”
This is to be expected from a company of criminals such as Microsoft. The crimes are harder to perpetrate when people are aware and forewarned.
For over a decade we wrote about Microsoft’s long history of tax evasion worldwide; even whistleblowing from Microsoft itself explained all the pertinent details over the years. It’s not a secret anymore. Almost a decade ago the IRS belatedly took on this issue, tackling Microsoft (connected to oil companies) and this new report reveals Microsoft’s strategy. [via Benjamin Henrion]
“It’s the biggest audit in IRS history,” one person explained. “Of what has been the largest company in the world. It’s taken over a decade. And it’s still not done. And it’s not going well for the gutted IRS.”
They just try to make it too expensive for the IRS or to ‘run the clock’…
Bill Gates bribed a lot of publications to focus on tax evasion of all companies other than Microsoft as well as his own tax evasion using a sham, bogus ‘charity’.
Here are some of the details from this new article:
Eight years ago, the IRS, tired of seeing the country’s largest corporations fearlessly stash billions in tax havens, decided to take a stand. The agency challenged what it saw as an epic case of tax dodging by one of the largest companies in the world, Microsoft. It was the biggest audit by dollar amount in the history of the agency.
Microsoft had shifted at least $39 billion in U.S. profits to Puerto Rico, where the company’s tax consultants, KPMG, had persuaded the territory’s government to give Microsoft a tax rate of nearly 0%. Microsoft had justified this transfer with a ludicrous-sounding deal: It had sold its most valuable possession — its intellectual property — to an 85-person factory it owned in a small Puerto Rican city.
Over years of work, the IRS uncovered evidence that it believed laid the scheme bare. In one document, a Microsoft senior executive celebrated the company’s “pure tax play.” In another, KPMG plotted how to make the company Microsoft created to own the Puerto Rico factory — and a portion of Microsoft’s profits — seem “real.”
[...]
It seems likely, given the size of Microsoft’s Puerto Rico transaction, that the IRS in May 2011 had hit the company with a tax bill in the billions. But Maruca and Hoory thought the agency was thinking small.
Maruca told Microsoft the IRS needed more time, and in early 2012, the IRS withdrew its findings. By then, Hoory had taken leadership of the audit. He began sending new document requests to Microsoft, asking for more interviews and considering what other experts the IRS needed to round out its case. Over the next three years, he and his team amassed tens of thousands of pages and conducted dozens of interviews with Microsoft personnel. (Hoory, who still works at the IRS, declined to comment.)
The evidence they assembled told a story. It revealed how Microsoft had built a massive Rube Goldberg machine that channeled at least $39 billion in profits to Puerto Rico. It revealed a workshop of outside consultants, economists and attorneys who, as they had with other corporate clients, meticulously planned a structure that seemed to have a basis in the law, even if it violated common sense.
The documents showed that Microsoft had been caught red-handed, Hoory believed. Despite all their care in preparing for an eventual audit, the deal’s architects had left damning evidence that, he thought, made it possible for the IRS to expose the sham.
So those who are rich and have prestigious lawyers (or external law firms) can just exhaust the resources of the IRS and get away with it, leaving the IRS to pick on poor and defenseless people instead. This is maladministration and a hallmark of corruption becoming the ‘norm’. We recently mentioned how lots of Microsoft crimes all around the world resulted in only a tiny settlement. Nobody was arrested. This is the kind of atmosphere which encourages Microsoft to carry on with crime.
In order to keep people ‘off its back’ Microsoft kicked off a shameless greenwashing campaign. It started about a week ago and boiled down to nothing more than a blog post and some future (fictional) date with no commitments. Associates of ours thought it was intended to perpetuate the illusion of Microsoft existing for many years to come.
Media which Gates and Microsoft have bribes blindly parroted the talking points from Microsoft. This is why many people no longer trust the media.
CounterPunch wrote this rebuttal to it and published it on Tuesday. To quote some portions:
“This is a bold bet – a moonshot – for Microsoft.” So claimed Brad Smith, Microsoft President, in a Thursday announcement painting a picture of a company that intends to be carbon negative by 2030. “And,” Smith continued, “it will need to be a moonshot for the world.” That vision entails the removal of more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits. By 2050, the company intends removing from the environment all carbon the company has emitted since its founding in 1975.
[...]
But much of this should not detract from the obvious point: Microsoft is happy to have a bit each way when it comes to how it finances its green image. The waters it bathes in are not always ecologically sound. While the company positions itself high on the soapbox of environmental purity, it is still a corporation governed by that traditional mix of predatory instinct and innate opportunism. In this, it shares a streak with Facebook and Google, two other entities who exude self-confidence in the illusion that they are principled, morals at the ready.
This point was made last year when it was revealed that all three companies sponsored LibertyCon, the annual conference for the Students for Liberty, a libertarian group. Both Microsoft and Facebook forked out $10,000 each as gold sponsors; Google went a grade better with $25,000, making the platinum grade.
This clutch of sponsors was not, in of itself, odd. But the three companies found themselves sharing a crowded platform with outfits distinctly against the science of climate change, showing how vast open tents can get rather muddy on the inside. One of those present was the CO2 Coalition, a group celebrating the virtues of carbon, and feels that it has been unduly demonised. Carbon, it lauds, “is essential for life.” Available at the conference was a brochure from its good offices extolling the merits of greater quantities of carbon dioxide, explaining how that would improve “our lives and our planet Earth”.
One of its members, retired statistics professor Caleb Rossiter, spoke at the gathering by insisting that, “There has been no increase in storms, in intensity or frequency. The data don’t show a worrisome trend.”
In short, Microsoft is the very opposite of what it claims to be.
ZDNet has also just published “Microsoft to forcibly install Bing search extension in Chrome for Office 365 ProPlus users,” so anyone who still believes in the fictional ‘new’ Microsoft needs to wake up and follow the money. One might end up in some offshore tax evasion haven. █
Against the licence of Linux itself? They treat Free software like some ‘hippie’ thing, leaving the original developers institutionally homeless and without representation of any kind (except theoretic/symbolic).
Summary: We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)
THE freedom of all software is under attack. So-called ‘permissive’ licences are advocated by proprietary software giants, looking mostly to exploit and control projects. That much should not be surprising. It’s a widely known fact. Our debates with Microsoft managers have made it abundantly clear that Microsoft still isn’t tolerating the GPL and it has this ‘offshoot’ called Black Duck (there have been several more since it was acquired), whose management came from Microsoft and admitted that its original goal was to discourage GPL adoption. Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them. What does that say about him?
“Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them.”About a week ago we learned there was an article on the way that related to things we had published (not about Black Duck; FOSS Force really ought to write something about Black Duck’s history). Earlier this week it finally came out; it was Bruce Byfield’s thought-provoking piece about the Linux Foundation. Byfield notes that the “Linux Foundation has not only accepted Microsoft as a Platinium member, but awarded it two seats on the board of directors: one representing Microsoft directly, and the other representing the Microsoft-owned GitHub.”
That’s not indirectly, that is Microsoft directly. The new PR trick is for companies to pretend to be smaller than they are (Alphabet Google does this too, e.g. YouTube).
Notice how they get more seats over time. It’s all about money.
“So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source.”Also, remember that the the Vice Chair (of the Board) worked for Microsoft and there are Microsoft developers in key positions, cushioned by Greg K-H, who himself worked indirectly for Microsoft (or on Microsoft projects) while on Novell/Microsoft payroll.
The interesting part — to me at least — is in the comments/discussion. For those who don’t know, Chris Aniszczyk is “currently a CTO at the Linux Foundation” (according to him). Notice what he wrote.
So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source. LF staff is now joining Microsoft in attacking the GPL, even in public. Not just any staff but chief staff of the LF, echoing Microsoft-connected (WhiteSource/Black Duck) FUD against the GPL. It’s consistent with some stuff we saw in the past and commenters such as “Mike” respond:
> “Does the FSF or SFC have corporate member or developer seats or just individual seats only? It seems you are only hearing one side fo the story that’s inaccurate.”
That’s pretty ironic considering what the Linux Foundation did to its community representation. The Linux Foundation tells only the corporate side of the story. Like any corporation, trusting them with your well-being is a stupid thing to do.
“Mike” responds to Bruce Byfield as well:
The *relative* decline of GPL and copyleft is only natural when viewed in terms of volume of code being produced.
There is far more corporate funded code than ever before – and that code is almost universally stamped with ‘permissive’ licenses. Lots more open-washing today than ever.
There are plenty of new copyleft projects out there, but that doesn’t fit the corporate driven narrative.
Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation). We’ve complained about this for half a decade or longer. But even other Microsoft-sponsored ‘analysts’ do the same thing, treating anything that Microsoft does not control as though it does not exist and ought not be counted. Should it be surprising that copyleft-leaning projects (e.g. GNU) aren’t interested in the proprietary trap which is GitHub? That’s like measuring collective societal wealth based only on who shops at Hugo Boss stores/outlets. The picture one sees is distorted by the narrowness of the target audience/client base.
“Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation).”Mike’s replies make sense. And Chris then responds to Chris, more or less nailing it, arguing that the LF “treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans…”
We’ve said something similar several times in the past.
Here’s the full comment:
To me the point is that the Linux Foundation is doing nothing whatsoever to advance desktop Linux, and treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans, even though they were the first boosters of Linux development. At LF, if it’s not software being developed for commercial and enterprise users, or if it’s designed to be used on a desktop or laptop instead of in a data center or industrial device, it doesn’t exist.
Bruce Byfield did note: “A more cynical interpretation is that, from its very start, the Linux Foundation has been a slow coup, gradually usurping an authority to which it has no right. Ask me on alternate days which one I believe.”
“This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be ‘welcomed’ or ‘tolerated’ in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the ‘pragmatic’ and PR front.”Byfield also mentioned how he had lost his job at Linux.com. Less than a year ago the same thing happened all over again (the LF fired all staff and editors without as much as a prior notice). The site has not been the same since. It’s an embarrassment and it is pretty dormant.
What Byfield says about the “slow coup” makes sense. This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be ‘welcomed’ or ‘tolerated’ in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the ‘pragmatic’ and PR front. What good is an institution which does not guard its mission statement and spirit and only counts money, even from its biggest opponents? █
Summary: “It might be easier if we start from the GitLab software,” Stallman said
RECENTLY, a letter was sent to Richard Stallman to discuss threats associated with GitHub (among other things). Here is one proposal he entertained last week:
[Stallman:] Developing such software would be a big job, but possible if people are dedicated. It would probably take soe [sic] years.
It might be easier if we start form [sic] the GitLab software. That is free, right?
However, I doubt we could even possibly hope to pull most free software hosting away with GitHub.
Let’s suppose we do a great job of developing that software and we set up a server running it, and we want to compete with GitHub for projects to choose us. How many free projects are there on GitHub? Hundreds of thousands, I suppose.
To provide good service for that many projects, I think we would need a server farm, and hundreds of staff. We could not afford that.
We would need those staff, and rental for the server farm.
not for a one-time development expense, but as operating costs, year after year.
The only way we could do that is by charging for the service. Most projects would choose some other service which is gratis.
However, those projects that chose our service would get good service, since we could afford to give it to them, for pay.
We could make this work, but would it make a big difference?
The response (from Thomas Grzybowski):
Hi Richard,
I feel encouraged that most of your concern about a GitHub replacement is technical and economic. Those problems can be solved. The key is to use a distributed architecture.
I see five important reasons to go with a distributed git repository:
1. Distributed I/O and CPU load.
2. No single point of failure (such as a ddos attack).
3. No single site entity would have to finance and maintain a gargantuan datacenter.
4. No one country could censor the content of the repository.
5. No single entity could completely control the entire repository.I have done some basic research and come up with a proposed technology: For the back-end the project can utilize a PostgreSQL database server utilizing Postgresql ltrees. Ltrees is a very powerful and performant database feature for tree-like data structures such as git, and it would be perfect for this application.
Putting the git data schema entirely in a database provides a secure and robust system, with transactional integrity.
Perhaps most importantly, PostgreSQL 10 has introduced a feature called “Logical Replication”, through which one can perform intra-database object-level replication across hosts. This can provide an efficient and solid transactional mechanism for distributed replication.
So, the core idea is to have several sites, located and independently financed in a number of countries.
Now, would such a thing make a BIG difference? Well, like most software projects it would start out small, and then get bigger. Code from Savannah can begin to be migrated-in, making it immediately important, and then the project will certainly receive a lot of attention. I think volunteers will be eager to get on board. As other hubs are established and various and diverse Free Software projects worldwide join-in there will be a compounding function in effect. I think ultimately such a system will provide the preferred repository for Free Software, since that domain will be the focus, and will have the benefits of the distributed implementation outlined above.
It will be an easy sell, assuming the interactive user experience is competitive; people will understand the importance immediately, since Free Software folks do not want to be overseen by Microsoft.
I can come up with a more detailed functional description and system specification if you would like.
Thanks,
Tom G.
Removing GNU/Linux projects from GitHub should be seen as a high-priority initiative. The FSF has not spoken about this yet (not in recent years). █
Recent: Microsoft Continues to Get Away With Serious Crimes Very Cheaply
Keep spinning, Microsoft…
Summary: Microsoft is working hard to describe itself as the exact opposite of what it is and what it has been; ‘Internet rot’ helps a lot with this agenda, not to mention control of the media (the narrative)
TO distrust Microsoft is not to “hate”; not any more than a cop chasing a thief does so out of “hatred”…
Microsoft did more than plenty to lose trust; it also lost antitrust cases. Microsoft is a convicted abuser. It continues to exist, sure, because political ties help a lot..
“Microsoft did more than plenty to lose trust; it also lost antitrust cases. Microsoft is a convicted abuser.”Several new readers of ours (we’re definitely growing so far this year) have asked for more indexes that help document particular patterns of abuse; thankfully, several folks have also offered help with it. Over time the site will improve and we’ve been made aware of large-scale legal actions that fish evidence out of Techrights. Some of these actions are against Microsoft (e.g. for sexism), but some pertain to patents — our ‘bread and butter’ in recent years.
It’s really regretful that many articles about Microsoft’s past crimes are vanishing from the Web. ‘Internet rot’ will make many not-so-flattering articles and quotes rot away, allowing PR ‘puff pieces’ to fill the gap with revisionism and marketing. That’s a huge problem and this is why we must take stock of old articles too (because their domains expire, along with copies). Only this way material and quotes can be verified. Obfuscation facilitates denials and societal/historical amnesia.
The other day we quoted Bill Gates and someone told us he was unable to locate the source of that quote. Eventually it was found on a quotes sites. “Then AZQuotes would be the source,” he said, but actually that site merely makes a copy of the original (with context, source and even date missing). “A very long time ago,” I responded, “about a decade [back] I got the quote copied into my notes from somewhere I saw as reliable.”
“That’s a huge problem and this is why we must take stock of old articles too (because their domains expire, along with copies).”Sometimes it seems like the death of many news sites will benefit most those whose past is full of evil deeds. They can craft a fictional history for themselves, hoping nobody will dig any deeper.
“Yes,” the person above noted, “that rot has been happening for a while. It even applies to articles promoting open standards. I supposed unlike with print, there is no authoritative copy archived anywhere on the planet. That’s one reason I donated to the Internet Archive this year, another was the FSF’s mistreatment of RMS and ongoing refusal to fix things up on any level so far.”
“The Internet may forget, but the Internet Archive never forgets (as long as it’s sufficiently funded).”We’ve often used the Internet Archive to highlight Microsoft’s older crimes. We’ll soon use the Internet Archive to show some really embarrassing things about Gates and his family. The Internet may forget, but the Internet Archive never forgets (as long as it’s sufficiently funded).
The person continued: “But back to the general rot, this quote has disappeared from Spaf’s home page in recent years: “Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse – external or internal – is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted.” (by Prof. Eugene H “Spaf” Spafford, father of the field of Internet Security)
“Speaking of revisionism, Microsoft is once again trying to rebrand itself as anti-patent trolls. Yes, Microsoft…”“Governments could legally end Microsoft in an instant, with or without force, if the politicians were not so thoroughly bribed by Bill, Bill’s dad, and their friends.”
“Yes,” I responded, but “this is applicable to many kinds of companies. In more than one country.”
Speaking of revisionism, Microsoft is once again trying to rebrand itself as anti-patent trolls. Yes, Microsoft…
There’s this new article (behind paywall) with the title “Apple, Microsoft and BMW urge EU to stop patent trolls” and it’s mentioned in some tweets this week.
How can Microsoft — and Apple too to a lesser degree — pretend that it opposes trolling? Together with IBM and OIN it recently said the same thing, never mind if Microsoft is one of the world’s biggest trolls and it’s arming many as well. Microsoft has outsourced the trolling to a subsidiary and to proxies, so is Microsoft asking the EU to stop itself? Nope. Those liars just hope to magically change the written record.
“How can Microsoft — and Apple too to a lesser degree — pretend that it opposes trolling?”Take note of this tweet/reply: “When we sold our patent about 10 years ago – only co we could find to by it was a Patent Troll 1/3 owned by Microsoft execs…” (by DataInforms (@DataInforms) January 16, 2020)
Intellectual Vultures we assume (see the reply from the former Microsoft employee, Rick Falkvinge, and see our wiki on “Intellectual Vultures”).
What DataInforms said on Twitter was seen alongside similar replies, such as: “They dont give a shit about innovation. The only reason why they changed their minds is, because they ran into some patent-walls for stuff that THEY want to profit / patent. If they could, they would gladly file those patents. Big companies dont have morals.”
“So now Microsoft claims to be champion of the fight against patent trolls.”There’s also this : “What i know have Apple on one hand been fighting patent trolls since the 80:ties. On the other hand they are acting like trolls to gain marketing and legal advantages. I guess that goes for all the big ones.”
So now Microsoft claims to be champion of the fight against patent trolls. What a bunch of liars and crooks. They sued Foxconn over Linux less than a year ago. █
“For most people, if you wanted to get on the internet, you just clicked on the big blue E on the desktop. It was right there, it worked, and that’s all that mattered.” (Gates was grilled, in his grueling deposition, about admitting this would be the strategy; he put that in writing)
Same strategy as WSL in Vista 10
Summary: A reader’s explanation of what Microsoft is trying to accomplish with its so-called ‘embrace’ and what steps will come next (how they manifest themselves)
THIS may sound strange, but it is absolutely true. Take a moment to think about it. Read carefully because our reader seems to have hit the nail right on the head.
Last week a reader told us what he had seen at the local store, a British shop (large chain) that sells loads of magazines.
That same reader has sent us more input after researching the matter even further.
To put it very succinctly, Microsoft nowadays uses the freedom of Free software to attack both this software and our collective freedom. The company did not change. It is still run by liars, criminals and crooks (ask the US government as it has just fined them for it).
“To put it very succinctly, Microsoft nowadays uses the freedom of Free software to attack both this software and our collective freedom.”An associate of ours takes note of this “spam” this morning (his words) and it comes from The Verge, a site which was edited by Bill Gates some years ago. As one might expect, nowadays it does lots of ads for Microsoft, but they’re cleverly disguised as articles with insights. We’ve named some British ‘news’ sites that do the same for Microsoft. The summary says “Microsoft’s new browser takes on Chrome with some different features.”
What are those features? Let’s find out…
Our associate has meanwhile taken note of a similar problem (almost identical but at the OS rather than browser space). Some Microsoft-leaning, WSL-promoting “spam” (his word) is being published. People are supposed to think that WSL is a replacement for GNU/Linux? What a joke…
Or that nobody needs to download a browser for Windows anymore? Because of “EDGE”?
“Get a load of this self-serving garbage from Microsoft,” our reader explained to us today. “The new Microsoft Edge… is twice as fast as legacy Edge” (tall claims from Microsoft Paul).
“People are supposed to think that WSL is a replacement for GNU/Linux? What a joke…”Get ready for the epic fake ‘benchmarks’… the ones Microsoft paid so-called ‘analysts’ to make about GNU/Linux, especially to make GNU/Linux seem inadequate for servers.
Our reader researched the MSEdge repository and posited that: “translation: Bury core functionality in a Windows DLL that loads at boot, hide the API calls from third-party developers, then sing the praises of the faster and better graphics/media playing of Microsoft Edge. Have these people no shame? That’s a rhetorical question…”
To quote the puff piece: “Outside the Microsoft Edge browser, users of other browsers on Windows PCs sometimes face inconsistent feature-sets and performance/battery-life across device types. Some browsers have had slower-progress to embrace new Windows capabilities like touch and ARM processors…”
Time for EEE, right? WSL style…
“Time for EEE, right? WSL style…”Our reader responds: “translation: As Microsoft Edge DLLs gets loaded at boot, they’re not counted as impacting battery performance. Any such battery saving features we have buried in Microsoft Edge and are not of course shared with third-party developers. This is the same shuffle we’ve been playing on you poor fools since the dawn of the personal computer and as long as you still let us, we’ll go on fooling you.
“Incidentally, I seriously doubt that Bill Gates has fully withdrawn from Microsoft. The willful distortions and historical revisionism coming out of Redmond has all the hallmarks of his speech patterns. Remember when he welcomed Mozilla onto the Internet, after Microsoft tried to buy Mozilla and then had to settle with licensing Spyglass, who Bill Gates of course cheated out of revenue. (It’s in one of the Comes documents)
“Isn’t it amazing, someone could go into a magazine shop and come out with a DVD containing all the software they would ever need. That software is at least equal if not better than the Microsoft innovation. And yet every year, the world spends billions on Microsoft licenses.” █
At ‘best’ they survive, only to promote Microsoft’s agenda and openwashing
Summary: The above photo (or meeting) may mark the turning point of the Openwashing as-a-Standard Initiative (OSI), which less than a year earlier took a bucket of money from Microsoft
THE above is not “fake news…”
All these people actually stood (or sat) there to take a photograph with Microsoft. Look how nonchalant they are.
“We’ve spent 30 minutes or so looking for additional notes (or photos, newer/older ones) to no avail…”“This photo was taken following the spring 2018 face-to-face meeting hosted at the Microsoft office in San Francisco,” Simon Phipps explained on May 1st, 2018. “Back row: Faidon Liambotis, Chris Lamb, Simon Phipps, Allison Randal, Molly de Blanc, Patrick Masson [and] Front row: Josh Simmons, VM Brasseur, Carol Smith, Italo Vignoli, Richard Fontana.”
“The (co)founder of the OSI left in protest earlier this month.”The meeting took place a few months after this (which Microsoft staff then promoted in the OSI’s blog, having entered the Board and of course paid a lot of money to OSI less than a year earlier; they’re all colleagues and bossed by one another). This remains a very troubling episode in the OSI’s history. The (co)founder of the OSI left in protest earlier this month. We’re still seeing additional if not belated articles about it (added to Daily Links).
We’ve spent 30 minutes or so looking for additional notes (or photos, newer/older ones) to no avail… there appears to be just about no record anywhere on the Web of the above meeting. Nothing. Prove us otherwise… if anyone knows about or can find text regarding this meeting, please let us know.
“We’ve seen similar things at the Linux Foundation (LF) and we can recall the same from Mr. Cohen at OSDL… before everyone quit and formed LF to replace OSDL (rendering Cohen obsolete). He had been meeting with Microsoft in private, which upset a lot of people at the time.”This reminds us of how Richard Stallman (RMS) gave a talk at Microsoft without the FSF saying anything about it. This is exceptionally odd because usually the FSF not only announces but repeatedly advertises RMS talks even months in advance.
We’ve seen similar things at the Linux Foundation (LF) and we can recall the same from Mr. Cohen at OSDL… before everyone quit and formed LF to replace OSDL (rendering Cohen obsolete). He had been meeting with Microsoft in private, which upset a lot of people at the time. There are still some articles on the subject (even on the Web, despite Internet rot). █
“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
“Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse – external or internal – is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted.”
–Prof. Eugene H “Spaf” Spafford, father of the field of Internet Security
Summary: Unwittingly, people are being reminded of the ‘special relationship’ between Microsoft and the US Army (or government); The back doors or bug doors are still there, even 7 years after Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks
“Suspect…”
That’s how our reader described the article “Microsoft patches big Windows flaw discovered by NSA” (one of several of this kind published yesterday) and specifically the above portions, which were highlighted by this reader.
We’ve written a great deal about Microsoft back doors — as there are many kinds of these — and yesterday a reader showed us how a con man CEO (faking financial performance) pretends that Microsoft fights for working encryption when it fact we know for a fact Microsoft did the opposite for at least 2 decades. When Microsoft says “security” it means “national” (i.e. Pentagon-controlled) ‘security’. Windows has been very imperialistic since the antitrust trial concluded, leaving Microsoft in tact but under tighter government controls. █
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guest Editorial Team
Community: Get involved
RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates
Site Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content
Site Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page
IRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · Valid XHTML · Valid CSS · Hosting by Schestowitz · Part of Bytes Media
 | |
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
