Summary: Microsoft's "Open Source" mole is going back to Microsoft to become the CTO of CodePlex; Microsoft MVP Jason Hiner carries on with Microsoft boosting (without disclosure)

MICROSOFT employees rarely change their spots and they are not born this way, either. It's a choice, it's a neglect or rejection of ethics. Under the assumption that "making money" is "doing good", that might as well be possible for these subjects to believe in what they do. A lot of ruthless people make money from other people's misery/subjugation/ignorance and the profit does not make that acceptable.

In the previous post we gave the MindTouch CEO as an example supporting the contention that people who leave Microsoft are still serving Microsoft in one way or another. Their old friends and colleagues are still at Microsoft after all. Their history is full of it.

“At least one of our readers told us that he still worked for Microsoft just without the badge or the monthly pay check.”A few years ago we wrote about what Stephen Walli was doing after he had left Microsoft. It seemed like he was "schmoozing" [1, 2] the "Open Source" community (obviously he would not view it that way) and telling companies to avoid software freedom and instead gravitate towards "Open Source", all while denying allegations that he was still tied to Microsoft's interests.

At least one of our readers told us that he still worked for Microsoft just without the badge or the monthly pay check. Well, now we know.

Stephen Walli becomes Codeplex Foundation Technical Director

The Microsoft founded Codeplex Foundation, which describes its mission as "enabling the exchange of code and understanding among software companies and open source communities", has appointed Stephen Walli as its Technical Director. He reports to executive director, Paula Hunter at the Foundation which appointed its board in March.

How long will Microsoft be unleashing its insidious 'insiders' onto "Open Source" to promote Microsoft, Mono, and other contaminations that bring the biggest enemy of "Open Source" (with massive PR effort to deny that it's an enemy) right into the heart of its #1 competitor? "Microsoft's faux FOSS foundation CodePlex has gained a new technical director," writes our reader Satipera. Apparently he does know much about Walli and a lot of people will miss the context of this story.

Satipera has just identified Microsoft MVP Jason Hiner [1, 2] using the "green" PR tactics (greenwashing) to promote Microsoft in high-performance computing (where GNU/Linux is by far most dominant [1, 2]). Hiner published this in TechRepublic (as usual, without any disclosure) and "TechRepublic greenwashes Microsoft's failed high end computing" is how Satipera summarised his article. Watch how he glorifies his beloved Microsoft:

I tip my hat to Microsoft for using its powers for good. The stuff that they are talking about with TCT involves changing high-end computing to make it simpler for scientists and engineers to access computing power and apps they need in a much faster, more powerful way in order to solve big problems.

Interestingly, it was only yesterday that we mentioned TechRepublic for its Novell/Microsoft promotion and presence of Microsoft boosters like Hiner.

What are people like Walli and Hiner promoting anyway? It's a company that represents bullying and corruption in many people's minds. Earlier today we wrote about the lawsuit against Salesforce and now we find some more coverage such as this:

Bogus is one way to describe Microsoft's patent claims against Salesforce.com

[...]

I purposely did not read Microsoft's description of the patents and Salesforce.com's alleged violations from the 9-page patent infringement lawsuit. Instead, I looked over the actual patents, reading them as they are and looking at them in context of Salesforce.com's business, as I understand it. I see huge PR value for Microsoft in filing this lawsuit, possibly inflicting damage against a successful competitor. The patent violations are sure to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Salesforce.com's future business and may even cause some customers to look elsewhere -- ah, like Microsoft. However, I see nothing among the nine patents, based on a careful non-lawyerly review, that remotely suggests Salesforce.com has grossly violated Microsoft intellectual property rights.

A lot of Microsoft's patent claims are "bogus" and patent numbers are rarely brought up at all. It's racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], that's what it is.

According to this recent article from LWN, "Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft [...] asserted that patented standards are entirely compatible with most open source licenses" (what a bunch of liars, whose party line CodePlex et al. are pushing).

What Microsoft means by "open source" is not the same as what others mean by it. Microsoft is trying to tame/change "Open Source".

Here is what the 'gentle' Microsoft bully Ina Fried has to say (sent to us by a reader just moments ago): "The patents cover a variety of back-end and user interface features, ranging from one covering a "system and method for providing and displaying a Web page having an embedded menu" to another that covers a "method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display."

These are not innovations. That's garbage and it applies to software. ⬆