02.16.19
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 7:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Similarly, SQL Server does not run on GNU/Linux (it’s another Microsoft lie)
Why “Windows Subsystem for Linux” and not “GNU/Windows”? (from Microsoft GitHub, now in NSA PRISM)
Summary: When Microsoft says “Linux” (as in “Microsoft loves Linux”) what it actually means is Windows and/or Azure
TECHRIGHTS published a number of articles about the WSL entrapment when it was first announced (Canonical’s “gift” to Microsoft). Here’s one of the longer ones. It did not at all herald a change in attitude but a change in strategy. Microsoft’s managers (the Board, i.e. Bill Gates et al) try to prevent people from using proper GNU/Linux with the actual kernel, either as standalone operating system or dual-boot. They try to make things just about functional enough to prevent users from leaving the spyware, Vista 10. This is also about surveillance on one’s files, keys (e.g. SSH), keystrokes, and everything else. It’s about control. It is about back doors.
“Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows?”Yesterday we saw an article titled “Windows 10 Will Finally Offer Easy Access to Linux Files”; that’s misleading as there’s no “Linux” in it, WSL is not GNU/Linux and those files are actually on Windows. Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows? The confusion alone serves its interests, e.g. calling SQL Server on DrawBridge (Windows) SQL Server for “Linux” when it’s really just some Windows-centric blob. Remember what Steve Ballmer said: “I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.” █
Credit: unknown (Twitter)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.11.19
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 12:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The ‘new’ Microsoft boils down to the patent equivalent of the copyright case of SCO (funded by Microsoft)
THE two-faced Microsoft told us that it had reached a “truce” on patents, but its trolls appear to have not gotten this memo or perhaps they were given another memo altogether. What Microsoft says in private and in public differs wildly.
“…Microsoft relies on such trolls to help sell “Azure IP Advantage”, i.e. “rents” or “patent royalties” or “protection money” (disguised as hosting plan).”A few days ago it was made apparent that Intellectual Ventures, a Microsoft patent troll, is still using the biased juries in Texas (trolls-friendly by their own admission) to extort the entire industry. There’s a lot of money at stake:
T-Mobile should pay $34 million and Ericsson Inc. should pay $9 million for infringing at least one of the wireless transmission patents held by Intellectual Ventures I LLC…
We have meanwhile also noticed that Southpaw Asset Management, an investment firm, is divesting from the Microsoft-funded patent troll Finjan; nevertheless, this troll continues to file additional lawsuits against Microsoft’s competitors. As we’ve explained many times before, Microsoft relies on such trolls to help sell “Azure IP Advantage” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18], i.e. “rents” or “patent royalties” or “protection money” (disguised as hosting plan). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.10.19
Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 3:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Public or private?
Summary: The inconsistencies between public statements of Microsoft and private discussions/actions
“My own point of view is that it’s a fantastic start in treating privacy as a human right,” Satya Nadella, last month when asked about GDPR (which Microsoft violates).
“I do think terrorism with biological or nuclear weapons is something we want to minimize the chance of,” Nadella’s boss (Microsoft Board) Bill Gates when asked about privacy (the company has long worked with the NSA and was the first in PRISM). So if people have privacy there will be nuclear war? That’s it? That’s what the argument boils down to?
“Microsoft loves Linux,” Nadella a few years ago.
“Linux infestations are being uncovered in many of our large accounts as part of the escalation engagements,” Microsoft confidential document.
There are many more examples like that; the key point though is that Microsoft basically appointed a very, very good liar as CEO. Believing him on just about anything is unwise and for those who believe he symbolises “diversity” remember he’s not too keen on women workers (article by a publication that Bill Gates is repeatedly bribing). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OSDL, OSI at 12:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Today’s Linux Foundation, de facto successor of OSDL, is fronting for proprietary software companies — a very profitable business prospect
Quite a few of the above are former Microsoft employees (document from IRS)
Summary: The Open Source Definition’s author as well as various Free/Open Source software (FOSS) luminaries warn of an attack on FOSS (“efforts to undermine the integrity of open source”); it’s not too hard to see who participates in it or enables such attacks
SOME days ago the media was ‘aflood’ or awash with reports (literally dozens like this one) about Microsoft stepping deeper into the Linux Foundation, spurring backlash and motivating some readers to write to us about it. As one reader once framed it, the Linux Foundation monetises the handover of Linux and pertinent related pieces, composed by volunteers, to the corporations that ‘buy’ these. It is a fantastic “business model” if it can be called that (imagine passing it off as a “charity”, too). Jim Zemlin and his fellow PR people (and accountant) receive outrageously large salaries, based on public filings (see above). We’re talking about something like $600,000 per year, possibly tax-exempt because they pose as a non-profit. The above is from 2015, so these salaries have likely increased since. As Bryan Lunduke pointed out at some point, these people earn even more money than Linus Torvalds himself (the people or person whose trademarks they convert into cash). Is he in it for software freedom or just for the money? Zemlin is not a technical person.
“…recently there have been efforts to undermine the integrity of open source…”
–OSII’ve long attempted to refrain from being too harsh on the Linux Foundation because I recognise we have vastly greater threats out there (threats to software freedom). The question remains, however, how much Microsoft money is too much and when does the Linux Foundation represent the interests of proprietary software companies more than it represents Free software (or “Open Source”) ideals?
OSI, which also received Microsoft money not too long ago, now warns about an effort to “undermine the integrity of open source”. To quote Business Insider’s new artice, “one of Silicon Valley’s most important industry groups warns that the definition of the term “open source” must be guarded just as zealously as that of the kilogram — and that “recently there have been efforts to undermine the integrity of open source” by stretching the definition to suit their own self-interest.”
“It’s no wonder that the OSI’s Bruce Perens warned a couple of years ago that the the Linux Foundation had become an infringers’ club (he was alluding to GPL infringements).”You just know something is very wrong when pro-GPL groups are being made up just to be dominated by serial GPL infringers like Microsoft and VMware. Who’s facilitating it (and profiting from it)? The Linux Foundation. It’s no wonder that the OSI’s Bruce Perens warned a couple of years ago that the the Linux Foundation had become an infringers’ club (he was alluding to GPL infringements). His views on OIN weren’t any more flattering. This isn’t some random person but the person who came up with the Open Source Definition and is generally supportive (and close to) the FSF/Free Software movement. █
“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.06.19
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Many new strides in recent months
Summary: Microsoft’s suffocating embrace is, as usual, targeting the market leader, this time Python (a programming star) and the past few months brought disturbing new developments associated with entryism
THE FOLLOWING tweets, starting 2010 and running until this week, tell the story better than a diagram/picture.
Money talks. Microsoft is buying its position inside Python like it did Apache a decade ago [1, 2]. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.28.19
Posted in Apple, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 12:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Why proprietary operating systems are universally dangerous and what we recommend instead
MARKET “FORCES” — as the mass media likes to call them (this media is among these forces) — tell us that we’re being given a “choice”. This choice, however, often excludes practical alternatives and instead presents a choice of brands, a choice of trade marks.
It is quite frankly worrying to see people choosing to pay for operating systems they very well know to be full of back doors. Some complement these with listening devices inside homes (eavesdropping on all the tenants) and sometimes even de facto CCTV, constantly connected to (and streaming to) surveillance companies in another country.
“There’s a business model there and it’s covertly hostile towards users. Many just aren’t aware of it. It’s a ‘sausage factory’…”In its early days (13 years ago) this site did a lot of GNU/Linux advocacy. Back in 2006 it wasn’t so clear whether GNU/Linux would dominate the market (even in servers GNU/Linux hadn’t yet reached the inflection point or “critical mass”). Nowadays GNU/Linux is a lot more popular everywhere, including the mobile market dominated by Android (Google never put GNU in it and it’s planning to remove Linux as well); GNU/Linux made strides in the laptop/desktop market (desktops, however, gradually become more extinct), e.g. with the Gentoo-derived Chrome OS. But these platforms do not offer freedom; instead, they’re all about surveillance. There’s a business model there and it’s covertly hostile towards users. Many just aren’t aware of it. It’s a ‘sausage factory’…
At the moment we’re hosted by Alpine Linux (the hypervisor). It has been running smoothly, without even a single reboot, since we began the site’s migration around October. “A fork of the distribution, postmarketOS, is designed to run on mobile devices,” Wikipedia says, and “it’s heavily used in containers providing quick boot up times.” For desktop we nowadays recommend more or less the same things the FSF recommends and endorses. See “Free GNU/Linux distributions” and “Explaining Why We Don’t Endorse Other Systems”. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.27.19
Posted in IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 4:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Big proprietary software vendors ruin and take over what’s left of Free/libre software (anything that respects freedom, not just surveillance and digital coercion)
Summary: Red Hat’s decision to sell itself to IBM really stinks; the only upside is, the buyer could be worse because Red Hat had hired many managers from Microsoft, its sites are sometimes composed by Microsoft staff and Red Hat routinely promotes .NET (the hallmarks of Microsoft entryism)
THE largest GNU/Linux vendor is about to be sold and passed over to the largest booster of software patents. Red Hat being Red Hat (a key contributor), it it getting a blank cheque on this just because it wasn’t Oracle or Amazon or Microsoft that bought Red Hat (and Red Hat reportedly reached out to Microsoft for a bidding opportunity before closing the deal with IBM). Red Hat cannot ignore IBM’s terrible record on patent policy and bullying. Is Microsoft interested in Canonical? Microsoft already announced losses several times in the recent past due to largely failed (unprofitable) acquisitions. We don’t mean to bash Red Hat over things like systemd because quite frankly many people do so already, but how can Red Hat carry on pretending that IBM isn’t an inherently incompatible suitor from a legal perspective? As recently as days ago a patent maximalist at Law 360 revealed that IBM is still shaking down small online retailers using software patents and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) refuses to get involved after an inter partes review (IPR). Some readers of ours go further* and allege that IBM sabotaged Red Hat just to buy it ‘on the cheap’.
“We are planning to watch Red Hat (or the Red Hat ‘division’ of IBM) a lot more closely in months and years to come.”Earlier this month we showed that IBM was pushing for software patents in the European Patent Office (EPO), not just at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) where it has lobbied hard against 35 U.S.C. § 101, in effect working to undermine SCOTUS (Alice). We wrote about a dozen articles about this one issue alone (IBM’s lobbying that actively harms Free software).
We are planning to watch Red Hat (or the Red Hat ‘division’ of IBM) a lot more closely in months and years to come. █
____
* We have been getting messages to that effect, e.g. the one below.
I came across your articles on website techrights.org recently and wanted to add some details to IBM’s activity in the industry.
The New Yorker broke Red Hat’s Linux founder Linus Torvald’s privacy in September 2018, and was the first publication to publish excerpts from his personal business emails: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-abusive-e-mails-the-creator-of-linux-steps-aside This led to Torvald’s public apology and withdrawal from Linux’s leadership, sending the RHT stock price on a chaotic path. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/rht
The New Yorker is owned by Conde Nast Publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications).
Conde Nast has partnered with IBM and their Watson technology since 2016 https://www.adweek.com/digital/cond-nast-has-started-using-ibms-watson-find-influencers-brands-173243/ ; https://landt.co/2016/09/conde-nast-ibm-watson-unearths-brand-influencers/
The New Yorker could have been acting on behalf of their partner, IBM, to send RHT into crisis PR mode. The New Yorker’s expose could have been deliberate: to drive down stock price in favor of a cheaper IBM takeover.
I thought this may be of interest to you and the staff at techrights.
To which my reply was:
The main issue I have with this assertion is that it was the Torvalds/CoC debacle that caused Red Hat’s decline, which I tracked closely (every day I posted financial news picks about them).
The followup:
Right, The New Yorker was the first to publish Torvalds’ private business emails, and attacked Torvalds in September 2018 causing Red Hat’s decline (https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-abusive-e-mails-the-creator-of-linux-steps-aside). The New Yorker has been in a partnership with IBM over its Watson software since 2016. It seems to me The New Yorker was financially motivated (by its relationship with IBM) to cause Torvalds’ downfall.
And finally:
With respect:
1. Torvalds isn’t close to Red Hat
2. Red Hat’s financial issues predate the above
I’ve asked around fellow techrights folks and they too think it’s improbable IBM played the major role; Microsoft or Intel would be more incentivised to throw a fit.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 2:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s CEO a decade ago (when he said that)
Summary: With GNU running under Windows (WSL) and other EEE-esque tactics we must remain vigilant and well aware of the grand scheme of things; Microsoft is still all about licensing its proprietary software and using it to spy
WITH various factors like the demise of software patents (e.g. 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the USPTO and US courts) and the OIN situation, not to mention IBM’s takeover of Red Hat (IBM strongly opposes § 101 — a position it reaffirmed 3 days ago at Watchtroll), we must consider the growing threat that is proprietary software companies simply devouring Free software. Under the guise of ‘cloud’ they lock down the code and with purchases like that of GitHub they look to assert more control over it and spy on private code (repositories that will be accessible to the NSA over PRISM). In yesterday’s daily links we included over half a dozen articles about Microsoft’s purchase of Citus (it’s still in the news [1, 2]). A decade or so ago we realigned to focus not only on Novell but also Microsoft entryism at large. Things have changed since then because several more large companies (e.g. Amazon) emerged as threats to the freedom of Free software, so we’d rather not return to a focus on Microsoft. In case it’s not obvious, Microsoft is currently just trying to control (or ‘become’) the competition; this assimilation strategy isn’t new and we resisted it even more than a decade ago when the likes of Sam Ramji were assigned the responsibilities. A reader of ours has been researching the prospect/likelihood Microsoft might take over — or at least try to take over — Canonical. We might revisit that in the future. At the moment it looks as though Microsoft, boosted by the GitHub takeover, infiltrated Python (its board/foundation). They basically bought staff in key positions. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA