Summary: How GNU/Linux gets 'embraced' (temporarily) by Microsoft boosters who try it just to mock it

"I like Linux, but..."

"Don't get me wrong, I've tried Linux, but..."

"I'm just curious, so I installed Linux and..."

“None of this is new, but the number of Microsoft boosters/publishers who do this nowadays seems to be increasing.”Do these lines sound familiar? Whenever they are heard, it usually means that Microsoft sympathisers may prepare to unleash some cheap shots, based upon some premise of "personal experience". None of this is new, but the number of Microsoft boosters/publishers who do this nowadays seems to be increasing. We occasionally see Ed Bott, Preston Gralla, Jason Hiner, and other people who make a living out of Microsoft 'trying' GNU/Linux only to mock it in public. That's their intention from the start.

Earlier this year we saw someone who had worked for Microsoft (Whittaker) trying GNU/Linux and then reporting back in ZDNet about how Windows (Vista 7 to be specific) is so much better. Well, he is still trying the platform and reports like this:

There is still a load of confusion aired over drivers, hardware support and installations. The in-built software center makes it relatively easy to install a set amount of programs and applications, but the wider aspects from basic Windows use would cause the first time user to struggle.

Whittaker is actually quite innocent and rarely crude at all, but another Microsoft booster from ZDNet, who repeatedly brings up the new theme in Ubuntu, is still knocking it. Just about a week ago he published his usual "Linux 'sucks'" rant. He makes that type of post several times per year, always with the same tired arguments reused. Why is it that ZDNet employs so many Microsoft boosters? That's probably a question that we answered like half a dozen times before.

Anyway, another class of problems are people who insist on bringing Microsoft to GNU/Linux, using Mono and Moonlight for example. The Source has a new explanation as to why Moonlight is not acceptable for use by GNU/Linux users (not just for technical reasons as we last showed them yesterday).

What about the fact that the Covenant defines a “Conforming Host” as either a web browser or a launcher implemented by Novell?

Wat about the fact that the Covenant defines “Moonlight 3” as only those portions developed by or on behalf of Novell?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifically defines the terms “Novell-Provided Copies” and “Novell Distribution“?

What about the fact that the Covenant restricts “by license and technical means” Media Packs to work only with Novell-Provided Copies of Moonlight?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifies test suites that Microsoft will provide to Novell for testing the functionality of Novell’s Moonlight candidates?

A simple request

Now, having read the text of the Covenant, anyone care to tell me exactly how there are no special Novell provisions in the Silverlight agreement?

In other news, "Docky and GNOME Do [are] now separated," says The H:

Launi says that in future there will be integration between Do and the GPLv3 licensed Docky.

This is not exactly news; the licence here is not the issue, either. The primary issue is that applications for GNU/Linux are being built using Microsoft tools and rules. It's beneficial to Microsoft and harmful to Free software. ⬆