2009 screenshot

Summary: Microsoft and Novell are omnipresent on the panels at the Linux Collaboration Summit; Microsoft's MVP Jason Hiner spreads Ubuntu disinformation again, through Tech Republic and ZDNet

LAST YEAR we showed that the Linux Foundation was unnecessarily stuffed by Novell staff, who obviously act as apologists for Microsoft and even put Microsoft code inside Linux [1, 2, 3]. They occasionally cause damage at Linux Foundation events.

Based on this article, Microsoft and Novell are on the panel/s again. The Microsoft presence takes the form of someone who pretends to have left Microsoft (but continues to serve Microsoft's agenda under a separate embodiment). Novell is not exactly loved in the GNU/Linux community, based on simple observations. Earlier today we cited an article about Novell's Pinta (developed by a Novell employee using Mono). Check out the resentment in comments at Linux Today.

“Novell is not exactly loved in the GNU/Linux community, based on simple observations.”Now, let's clarify something. This is a polite and factual observation. The message ought to be addressed here, not its messenger. We are well aware that everyone is naturally dismissing people who are critical or skeptical^* (who are in turn being described as "negative", "poisonous", or "bad guys" [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]).

Look no further than the latest argument between Sam Varghese and Caitlyn Martin. Both of them are being critical and slinging shots; neither is entirely innocent, but both can be described as "negative" here. It makes neither of them wrong, just a tad abrasive perhaps (it is a tenuous debate).

A few days ago we deliberately avoided linking to a piece from a Microsoft booster called Jason Hiner. He is a Microsoft MVP who routinely attacks GNU/Linux. He has done this for several years and he plays the 'Linux curious' card in order to bash the platform. Hiner's latest post about GNU/Linux may seem like flattery on the surface, but it's utter junk therein. Here is a response titled "Dear Tech Republic, it’s called FOSS and that’s just how it’s done"

Hiner’s whole list looks like it was derived from “Producing Open Source Software” (Fogel), yet the article reads as if this is something in OSes that only Canonical has figured out. In fact, what he describes is part of the whole reason Red Hat Linux became Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Don’t think for a minute Canonical didn’t notice and learn from that, too.

The author later added (in response to Bob Sutor from IBM): "That article is revisionist, uninformed, and narrow-thinking, so I wrote -- but I doubt ZDNet will repub."

“Have you posted a comment to this effect on the article, and contacted the author directly? I find this very valuable in educating journalists.”
      --Adam WilliamsonYes, Hiner and Tech Republic are also connected to ZDNet (the latest Hiner piece was published in ZDNet too), which is responsible for a lot of the FUD against GNU/Linux. It repeats the lies over and over again, even in the "Open Source" blog. Earlier today we found ZDNet's "Open Source" blog making the claim that desktop GNU/Linux requires the command line, whereas Windows no longer needs DOS. The claim was made by Dana, who does not even use GNU/Linux. Last week he repeated the fallacious claim that GNU/Linux has less than 1% of the desktop market. For shame, Dana, for shame.

Anyway, two comments were posted in response to the response to Hiner's piece. Both are from Fedora/Red Hat developers. The first is Rahul Sundaram's, who wrote: "I do have to point out that GNOME learned six months release cycle from Red Hat Linux as I noted in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora..."

Another Red Hat employee, Adam Williamson, wrote the second comment which says: "Have you posted a comment to this effect on the article, and contacted the author directly? I find this very valuable in educating journalists. :)"

But Hiner is not a journalist; he is a Microsoft enthusiast with a blog (or rag/tabloid known as ZDNet). ⬆ ____ ^* Netscape's former chairman, James H. Clark, once said: “Microsoft is, I think, fundamentally an evil company.” Does that make his an "irrational zealot"?