Did Microsoft 'Buy' Red Hat Without Paying for It? Does It Tell Canonical What to Do Now?
This is what Linus Torvalds once dubbed a "dick-sucking" competition or contest (alluding to Red Hat's promotion of UEFI 'secure boot')
YESTERDAY we found ourselves drowning in pro-Microsoft drivel from both Canonical and Red Hat, with a tally of about 10 puff pieces in one single day [1, 2] (the pages contain some commentary, though anyone with tact can deduce more or less the same; of course Phoronix promoted the Windows and E.E.E. angle, as usual).
We've decided that instead of amplifying Microsoft's marketing signal (by making this rubbish visible) we should just openly condemn Canonical and Red Hat; they're not only bowing to Microsoft, they try too entice their customers to become prisoners or slaves of Microsoft. They promote back doors, mass surveillance and proprietary software run by Microsoft for Microsoft's own revenue. They give Microsoft lifelines and make Microsoft stronger. This is against the interests of GNU/Linux and Free software.
Where are the competition authorities?
Speaking of which, there's this other new example and another with Dell (more of the "AI" nonsense). It's all gimmicks. To quote a Microsoft boosters' site (this week): “We are building the plane as we fly it. Nothing else matters. They want a Copilot tie-in for everything” (they too joke about it being mindless gimmicks sold as "AI" ).
Well, "no one has ever survived a partnership with Microsoft," an associate reminded us earlier today. It's a long topic, the associate argued, and we've spent decades giving so many examples of it, even predating Novell. Remember Corel?
Canonical and Red Hat aren't competing with Microsoft; instead - like Novell - they believe that becoming "partners" in exchange for some revenue-sharing will work out for them.
The behaviour of Canonical and Red Hat reminds us that community-led distros are important and we must not let companies like Canonical and Red Hat (or oligarchs like Mark Shuttleworth) become flag bearers. Shuttleworth is just the 'Musk' of the free/libre software world; he didn't have slaves in mines but he still has slaves in Debian. Nowadays he works for Microsoft. He's another social climber, trying to swim next to Bill Gates et al. He has no principles and never knows enough; he wants more and more... even if that means backstabbing those who built Ubuntu for him. Jim Whitehurst (Allowhurst) is also working for Microsoft (Mono) these days.
When people like them (and Nat Friedman) say "Open Source won" they mean to say it gave up or surrendered or capitulated to Microsoft/GitHub. █