“Gathering intelligence on enemy activities is critical to the success of the Slog. We need to know who their allies are and what differences exist between them and their allies (there are always sources of tension between allies), so that we can find ways to split ‘em apart. Reading the trade press, lurking on newsgroups, attending conferences, and (above all) talking to ISVs is essential to gathering this intelligence.”
Summary: Fake ‘friends’ of free/open source software are trying to crack the community and mock anything that’s associated with Microsoft’s competition; they use borderline “spam” tactics to achieve this
small group of disruptors is hijacking discussions in GNU/Linux-oriented forums, mass-mailing journalists, abusing the Free Software Foundation while pretending to be pro-FOSS, lobbying for software patents while pretending to be against them, and is now attacking LibreOffice too. To avoid personifying this issue we shall use the collective term mobbyists, which the FFII uses to combine “mob” with “lobby”. We no longer bring much attention to mobbyists because that it precisely what they want (and the reason they flood forums and journalists with nearly identical messages that contain lies).
Techrights encourages people not to feed the mobbyists because the more they are fed, well… the more they will probably be fed ($$$). Some mobbyists come from a career of paid-for lobbying, which is a euphemism for policy corruptors. █
Summary: The Open Web Foundation, which is co-chaired by Lawrence Rosen and Microsoft’s David Rudin, puts out a draft which is not compatible with GPL-licensed software
“Submit your remarks about the usage of RAND term at Open Web Foundation,” says the FFII regarding this draft from the Open Web Foundation. The deadline is today (still some hours left in the US). The draft in the page says “royalty free license to my Granted Claims on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms” (RAND is not compatible with the GPL).
“Someone should propose a patch to remove the “reasonable and non-discriminatory terms” because it is an undefined term,” argues the FFII.
The Open Web Foundation Legal Committee Co-Chairs are Lawrence Rosen (lrosen@rosenlaw.com) and David Rudin (davidrud@microsoft.com). Do not let them make the Web less compatible with software freedom. Microsoft (and its lobbyists) loves RAND because it’s GNU/Linux Kryptonite. Be sure to check out this new article about Microsoft front group ACT lobbying for RAND by infiltrating EU panels:
The web site specializes in publishing secret reports and leaked documents on religious, corporate or governmental, Wikileaks has posted a file showing a plan to curb the free software in Europe.
This file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union.
That lobbies to exert pressure against the government institutions under their interests no doubt, and this document published by Wikileaks is clearly demonstrated.
The document in question is a work project developed by experts from the European Commission. This document has been modified by the ACT and Comptia organizations that have been percolating in several working groups.
These two associations are doing everything in their power to try to stifle free software strategy of the European Union, and helping Europe to create a successful proprietary software sector.
This publication shows how pressure groups influence or attempt to influence the decisions made by the European institutions, but in this case is particularly striking one of these groups trying to influence against free software (ACT) has close ties Microsoft, the largest seller of proprietary software in the world.
The FFII’s president summarises the above by quoting:
RT @marcopolom #Wikileaks publishes documents that show a plan to curb the free software in the European Union. http://trunc.it/bpkf0
We covered this story last year in some of the posts below. For some unknown reason it’s back to the headlines this month. █
Another notable company which has some Microsoft roots and focuses on proprietary software development (for tracking free/open source development) is Black Duck (background reading may be required).
“The Ohloh acquisition didn’t work so well for Free software, for obvious reasons.”One trend we have been noticing in recent years is that Microsoft alumni are getting authority in Microsoft’s opposition including Free software, occasionally counting all sorts of things in ways that are beneficial to Microsoft (we gave examples before, ranging from C# boosting to promotion of Microsoft’s software licences and insistence that Microsoft is an open source player rather than adversary).
Black Duck is finally picking some Microsoft alumni from Ohloh away from SourceForge (renamed and restructured for separation) and here is the official announcement:
Black Duck Software, the leading global provider of products and services for accelerating software development through the managed use of open source software, today announced that it has acquired Ohloh.net from Geeknet, Inc (NASDAQ: GKNT.) The transaction closed on September 30, 2010.
Ohloh, founded in 2006, is the largest free public directory of open source software, and also hosts a vibrant web community of software developers and Free and Open Source (FOSS) users. Ohloh’s directory contains information aggregated from over 250,000 public code repositories, projects and forums. Black Duck, which has acquired all assets of the Ohloh property, will maintain and enhance the Ohloh website, brand, and project information for the Ohloh community, and will ultimately combine Ohloh and Koders.com to establish a comprehensive, free resource for developers to find, create, use and manage FOSS.
The announcement is not open to feedback, so comments in LWN (if any) will go here.
Open source software company Black Duck Software (which is backed by close to $40 million in funding from Red Hat, Intel Capital and others) has acquired Ohloh, a free public directory of open source software and people. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.
Ohloh, sold by its previous owner and operator Geeknet (formerly known as SourceForge), will be integrated with Black Ducks’ free code search site Koders.com in an effort to further promote the adoption of open source software around the world.
For those who do not know, Black Duck has not a good relationship with the SFLC as they patented Bradley’s job, which led to polite confrontation last year. “A #Disturbing Combo” called Bradley the above development “#BlackDuck buys Ohloh [...] was already proprietary, now can only get worse. Use @openhatchery instead!”
Here is a post from last week where Black Duck tried to associate itself with the Linux Foundation. All in all, Techrights views this news as two Microsoft sympathisers (they facilitate Microsoft influence inside “open source”) becoming one entity. Whether that’s good or bad is open to debate. At least they are under a single umbrella now. █
Summary: Europe’s leading Web browser rejects the patent trolls who sell H.264 licences and Vincent Van Quickenborne gets accused of lying “about open source and software patents”
Despite H.264 announcing it would go royalty free, Opera says the standard isn’t open enough for them to support it
In late August this year the MPEG Licensing Authority (MPEG LA), a body which licenses pools of patents for various standards, announced that it wouldn’t charge royalty fees for Internet video that streams to end users for free.
Previously MPEG LA had said they wouldn’t charge royalties for such video until after 31 December 2015, but now it appears that this will be extended into perpetuity.
This move by the MPEG LA wasn’t welcomed by everyone however, with Mozilla speaking out against the move and questioning the relevance of the H.264 standard beyond 2014.
Mr. Quickenborne, whom we wrote about back in July, is still on the side of the likes of MPEG-LA considering the fact that he wilfully (perhaps knowingly) opens the door to software patents in Europe and, according to this new video, he also “lies about open source and software patents”. From the video’s summary:
Belgian EU Presidency lies about open source and software patents
Belgian Minister of Economy, Vincent Van Quickenborne, was interviewed about software patents in the Radio show “RTBF Matin Premiere”, lying about the current situation in Europe about software patents. In fact, the central EU patent court he is pushing has great chances to validate the practice of the European Patent Office (EPO) to grant software patents.
EN una entrevista reciente con la revista Rolling Stone, usted ha hablado del compromiso de esta administración a los derechos civiles al mismo tiempo que insultar la inteligencia de los que se refieren a las libertades civiles. Este es el registro real de las administraciones a las libertades civiles, un disco que es en realidad peor que la anterior, que es a la vez claramente inexcusable e irresponsable peligrosamente.
“Otras acciones de este gobierno hacer explícito su deseo de revertir la práctica institucional de la presunción de inocencia y sustituirla por la presunción de culpabilidad”.
El movimiento de derechos civiles que se habló, y como lo reconocen hoy en día, no habría sido posible sin las libertades civiles. Si bien las leyes fueron claramente abusiva para tratar de suprimir ese movimiento, los esfuerzos fracasaron en gran parte porque los Estados Unidos en el momento de la comisión institucional de los principios básicos esenciales legales que incluyen la privacidad, la libertad de expresión y asociación, el debido proceso y la presunción de inocencia. Aunque cada uno de estos principios jurídicos fundamentales ha sido cuestionada de forma reversible por la administración Bush, es el departamento de justicia que ha trabajado incansablemente para hacer esas transgresiones temporales se convierten en una parte permanente y duradera de la ley orgánica de los Estados Unidos.
Tal vez la mayoría de la gente piensa de las declaraciones más dramáticas de su gobierno a las libertades civiles, como hizo valer el derecho a la meta para los ciudadanos estadounidenses en el extranjero asesinato del capricho y la declaración de un funcionario de gobierno por sí solo. Esto no es lo más importante, y ciertamente no por mucho, la única amenaza para las libertades civiles hoy su administración se ha comprometido pulgadas Otras medidas importantes son los esfuerzos de los Estados Unidos Departamento de Justicia para utilizar explícitamente secretos de Estado que desestime las demandas de aquellos que buscan una reparación de la práctica ilegal de entregas extraordinarias y la tortura a manos de contratistas privados, y establecer secretos de Estado como una protección institucional para los que lleven a cabo acciones ilegales en nombre del gobierno de Estados Unidos en general, incluidas las empresas de telecomunicaciones que ha facilitado amplia intercepción ilegal de nacionales en el pasado.
“En relación con esto es el esfuerzo para crear un tratado de derechos de autor completamente nuevo en secreto (ACTA) que busca la posibilidad de castigar a los individuos directamente por presuntos delitos sin recurrir al debido proceso.”
Otras acciones de este gobierno hacer explícito su deseo de revertir la práctica institucional de la presunción de inocencia y sustituirla por la presunción de culpabilidad. Un ejemplo claro de ello es la afirmación del derecho del gobierno de Estados Unidos a la lista negra de forma automática sitios web simplemente “acusado” de violación de los derechos de autor de alguna manera, ni con la supervisión judicial ni el debido proceso. Relacionado con esto está el esfuerzo de crear un tratado de derechos de autor completamente nuevo en secreto (ACTA) que busca la posibilidad de castigar a los individuos directamente por presuntos delitos sin recurrir al debido proceso. Como estos ejemplos ilustra, en una sociedad basada en la presunción de culpabilidad, puede ser castigado por delitos que no sólo no han sido probadas, pero que ni siquiera se han presentado pruebas de que puede ser impugnada. Está muy claro de ver, y la historia demuestra, cómo estas herramientas pueden ser mal utilizada para silenciar o censurar fuentes independientes y críticos de expresión en Internet.
“Tal vez la salida más desconcertante en una sociedad basada en la presunción de culpa es el esfuerzo de este gobierno de buscar una nueva ley con el mandato que los backdoors gobierno existen en todos los servicios de comunicaciones y software.”
Igualmente preocupantes son las recientes redadas en las casas de disidentes y activistas por la paz interna. Como ya se informó por el departamento de justicia propia, muchas de estas investigaciones de los disidentes internos se iniciaron mal sin ninguna prueba real que sea, y, a menudo con declaraciones falsas a sabiendas. Sin embargo, este hecho no impidió que el FBI de participar en “ataques terroristas” contra activistas de la paz en el país o la afirmación de “secreto de Estado” ante el reto después para justificar la realidad estas acciones.
Tal vez la salida más desconcertante en una sociedad basada en la presunción de culpa es el esfuerzo de este gobierno de buscar una nueva ley con el mandato que los backdoors gobierno existen en todos los servicios de comunicaciones y software. Este esfuerzo desea tanto ampliar y totalmente institucionalizar el uso ilegal de vigilancia interna practicada por la administración Bush.
De vuelta en los años de Clinton, una ley fue creada llamada de CALEA (la Asistencia de Comunicaciones para la Aplicación de la ley Ley). Esta ley requiere que todos los sistemas telefónicos vendidos y desarrollados por operadores comerciales en los Estados Unidos incluyen puertas traseras para que el gobierno de interceptar las comunicaciones de voz. Mientras la policía del Gobierno de los Estados y locales sólo se comprometen con cerca de 1000 legalmente iniciado investigaciones escuchas telefónicas a nivel nacional en un año determinado, esta ley el mandato de la capacidad para espiar al mismo tiempo a millones de personas a la vez va a crear. En el momento de su “prometida” que el abuso generalizado como “nunca” en realidad sucede. Sin embargo, hemos aprendido que ya en la primavera de 2001, la administración Bush ya había utilizado directivas presidenciales que autoriza las compañías privadas de telecomunicaciones para el uso puertas traseras de CALEA para participar en la vigilancia a gran escala doméstica, probablemente, dada la fecha, exclusivamente para fines políticos internos. Esta administración no sólo se niega a repudiar estos actos el pasado secreto e ilegal, pero defiende tanto explícita y desea volver a hacer en las que están totalmente institucional legal.
“Tal vez lo más terrible es la adición de puertas traseras en los sistemas operativos como Microsoft Windows, ya se sabe que es inseguro y defectuoso por diseño, que simplemente aumenta aún más su vulnerabilidad y los peligros inherentes a su uso continuado.” Cuando hablamos de la introducción de puertas traseras en los sistemas de comunicación , como puertas traseras rara vez se mantienen en secreto y con frecuencia se presentan a los abusos no sólo por los gobiernos nacionales, sino también por empresas privadas e incluso particulares. Estos mandatos no hacer una sociedad más segura, pero en realidad menos. Tal vez lo más terrible es la adición de puertas traseras en los sistemas operativos como Microsoft Windows, ya se sabe que es inseguro y defectuoso por diseño, que simplemente aumenta aún más su vulnerabilidad y los peligros inherentes a su uso continuado.
Esto es un peligro muy real, que puede ser letal. Si hablamos de un sistema de alarma aérea comprometida que dio lugar a un accidente aéreo en España, un buque de guerra prestados muerto en el agua, o un sistema de alarma en su defecto en una plataforma petrolera, en parte, contribuyendo a un catastrófico derrame de petróleo en el Golfo de México, inocente las personas se ponen a un gran riesgo por la promulgación de esta política. Mientras que estos accidentes se debió en parte de la mano de obra de mala calidad de un sistema mal diseñado ya operativo que se utilice en lugares inapropiados, imaginar las posibilidades más para mal intencionada por la explotación de cualquier instalación de tales garantizado y el mandato de puerta trasera.
“La privacidad es en última instancia acerca de la libertad mientras que la vigilancia siempre se trata de control”.
En Estados Unidos la cuarta enmienda no se produjo simplemente porque no era práctico para espiar directamente en todo el mundo en una escala tan grande. Tampoco final simplemente porque ahora puede ser técnicamente factible hacerlo. privacidad de las comunicaciones, además, es esencial para el normal funcionamiento de las sociedades libres, ya sea hablando de los denunciantes, los periodistas que tienen que proteger sus fuentes, los derechos humanos y activistas por la paz participar en la disidencia política legítima, los trabajadores empleados en la organización de sindicatos, o los abogados que deben proteger la confidencialidad de sus comunicaciones privilegiadas con los clientes. La privacidad es en última instancia acerca de la libertad mientras que la vigilancia siempre se trata de control.
Con este fin, en 2006, y en el momento en respuesta a las acciones ilegítimas de la administración anterior, he creado un proyecto cuyo objetivo era explícitamente para crear y entregar peer-to-peer criptográficamente segura software de comunicación directa al público en general. Este software ha sido licenciado como libre (como en libertad) de software explícitamente a facilitar a las personas para verificar que no hay puertas traseras están presentes y que les permita modificar la ley y redistribuir el software a los demás como les parezca conveniente. Si una nueva ley se crea que trata con el mandato legal la inclusión de puertas traseras en el software, que abiertamente se niegan a cumplir.
“Para este fin, en 2006, y en el momento en respuesta a las acciones ilegítimas de la administración anterior, he creado un proyecto cuyo objetivo era explícitamente para crear y entregar peer-to-peer criptográficamente segura software de comunicación directa al público en general . “Lo más preocupante de todo acerca de la expansión de la vigilancia ilegal es cómo va a formar de nuevo el carácter institucional de la sociedad. Para apreciar el efecto de esta vigilancia sobre las sociedades humanas, imaginar que entre los varios cientos de millones de personas que se despiertan cada día tener que demostrar que no son “terroristas”, sin embargo, que puede ser caprichosamente definido por el momento, agravado por la imposible tarea de hacerlo sin que se concede el derecho de enfrentar a sus acusadores en el ‘procedimiento’ resumen o incluso para estar informado de las supuestas “pruebas” obtenidas por cualquier métodos arbitrarios, agentes secretos del uso de la represión, y en su procesamiento se lleva a cabo bajo la cubierta de “secretos de Estado” que todos los estados la policía como el uso de abusar de sus propios ciudadanos. Tal es una sociedad cuyo fundamento se basa en la premisa de que todos son culpables hasta que el debido proceso se demuestre lo contrario y donde no existe, una sociedad donde el fin justifica los medios. Es la imposición de una sociedad tan ilegítimo que elegimos para oponerse abiertamente, y hacerlo de esta manera.
Gracias por su tiempo y atención,
David Alexander Sugar
Chief Facilitator
GNU Telephony Project
“They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did” - Ma¿píya Lúta
Summary: Letter to the president from David Alexander Sugar, GNU Telephony Project
Attention: The President and the people of the United States of America
Why civil liberties matter – an open letter to the Obama administration
IN a recent Rolling Stone magazine interview, you spoke of this administration’s commitment to civil rights while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of those who are concerned with civil liberties. It is this administrations actual record on civil liberties, a record that is in fact worse than the preceding one, that is both clearly inexcusable and dangerously irresponsible.
“Other actions by this administration make it explicit it wishes to reverse the institutional practice of presumption of innocence and replace it with presumption of guilt.”The civil rights movement that you spoke about, and as we recognize today, would not have been possible without civil liberties. While laws were clearly misused to try suppressing that movement, those efforts failed largely because the United States at the time was institutionally committed to essential core legal principles that included privacy, the freedom of speech and association, due process, and the presumption of innocence. Although each of these fundamental legal principles had been challenged on a reversible basis by the Bush administration, it is your justice department that has worked tirelessly to make those temporary transgressions become a permanent and enduring part of the institutional law of the United States.
Perhaps most people think of your administration’s more dramatic statements on civil liberties made like asserting the right to target for assassination American citizens abroad on the whim and statement of a government official alone. This is not the most important, and certainly not by far the only, threat to civil liberties today your administration has engaged in. Other important actions include efforts by the United States Department of Justice to explicitly use state secrets to dismiss lawsuits of those seeking redress from the unlawful practice of rendition and torture at the hands of private contractors, and to establish state secrets as an institutional protection for those carrying out unlawful actions on behalf of the United States government in general, including telecom companies that had facilitated widespread illegal domestic intercept in the past.
“Related to this is the effort to create a new copyright treaty entirely in secret (ACTA) that seeks the ability to punish individuals directly for alleged crimes with no due process recourse.”Other actions by this administration make it explicit it wishes to reverse the institutional practice of presumption of innocence and replace it with presumption of guilt. One clear example of this is the assertion of the right of the United States government to automatically blacklist websites merely “accused” of copyright infringement in some manner, with neither court oversight nor due process. Related to this is the effort to create a new copyright treaty entirely in secret (ACTA) that seeks the ability to punish individuals directly for alleged crimes with no due process recourse. As these examples illustrates, in a society based on presumption of guilt, one can be punished for crimes that have not only not been proven, but that do not even have evidence presented that can be challenged. It is very clear to see, and history proves, how such tools can be misused to silence or censor independent and critical sources of speech on the public Internet.
“Perhaps the most disconcerting departure into a society based on the presumption of guilt is the effort of this administration to seek a new law to mandate that government backdoors exist in all communication services and software.”Equally troubling are the recent raids on the homes of domestic dissidents and peace activists. As already reported by your own justice department, many of these investigations of domestic dissidents were improperly initiated without any actual evidence whatsoever, and often using knowingly false statements. Yet, this fact did not stop the FBI from engaging in “terrorism raids” on peace activists across the country or asserting “state secret” privilege when challenged afterward to actually justify these actions.
Perhaps the most disconcerting departure into a society based on the presumption of guilt is the effort of this administration to seek a new law to mandate that government backdoors exist in all communication services and software. This effort wishes to both expand upon and fully institutionalize the illegal use of domestic surveillance as practiced by the Bush administration.
Back in the Clinton years, a law was created called CALEA (the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act). This law required that all telephone systems sold and deployed by commercial carriers in the United States include backdoors to enable government intercept of voice communications. While the United States government and local police only engage in about 1000 lawfully initiated wiretap investigations nationwide in any given year, this law mandated the capability to simultaneously spy on millions of people at once be created. At the time it was “promised” that such widespread abuse would”never” actually happen. Yet we have learned that as early as the spring of 2001 the Bush administration had already used presidential directives authorizing private telecom carriers to use CALEA backdoors to engage in large scale domestic surveillance, presumably, given the date, entirely for domestic political purposes. This administration not only refuses to repudiate these past secret and illegal acts, but both defends and explicitly wishes to re-make into fully institutionally legal ones.
“Perhaps most terrifying is adding backdoors to operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, already known to be insecure and defective by design, which simply further increases their vulnerability and the dangers inherent in their continued use.”When we speak of introducing backdoors into communication systems, such back-doors rarely remain secret and often present themselves to abuse not only by national governments, but also by private corporations and even individuals. Such mandates do not make a society more secure, but in fact less. Perhaps most terrifying is adding backdoors to operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, already known to be insecure and defective by design, which simply further increases their vulnerability and the dangers inherent in their continued use.
This is a very real danger, one that can be lethal. Whether we speak of a compromised airline alarm system that resulted in an plane crash in Spain, a battleship rendered dead in the water, or an alarm system failing on an oil rig in part contributing to a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, innocent people are put to great risk by enactment of this policy. While these accidents resulted in part from the shoddy workmanship of an already poorly designed operating system being used in inappropriate places, imagine the further possibilities for deliberate mischief by exploitation of any such guaranteed and mandated backdoor facility.
“Privacy is ultimately about liberty while surveillance is always about control.”In the United States the 4th amendment did not come about simply because it was impractical to directly spy on everyone on such a large scale. Nor does it end simply because it may now be technically feasible to do so. Communication privacy furthermore is essential to the normal functioning of free societies, whether speaking of whistle-blowers, journalists who have to protect their sources, human rights and peace activists engaging in legitimate political dissent, workers engaged in union organizing, or lawyers who must protect the confidentiality of their privileged communications with clients. Privacy is ultimately about liberty while surveillance is always about control.
To this end, back in 2006, and at the time in response to the illegitimate actions of the prior administration, I created a project whose purpose was explicitly to create and deliver peer-to-peer cryptographically secure communication software directly to the general public. This software was licensed as free (as in freedom) software explicitly to facilitate people to verify that no backdoors are present and to enable them to legally modify and redistribute the software to others as they see fit. If a new law is created that tries to legally mandate the inclusion of backdoors in such software, we will openly refuse to comply.
“To this end, back in 2006, and at the time in response to the illegitimate actions of the prior administration, I created a project whose purpose was explicitly to create and deliver peer-to-peer cryptographically secure communication software directly to the general public.”What is most troubling of all about the expansion of illegal domestic surveillance is how this will reshape the institutional nature of society. To fully appreciate the effect of such surveillance on human societies, imagine being among several hundred million people who wake up each day having to prove they are not “terrorists”, however that may be whimsically defined at the moment, compounded by the impossible task of doing so without being accorded the right to face their accusers in summary ‘proceedings’ or even to be informed of the alleged ‘evidence’ produced by whatever arbitrary, secretive methods such agents of repression use, and where their prosecution is carried out under the shroud of “state secrets” that all such police states use to abuse their own citizens. Such is a society whose foundation is built on the premise of everyone being guilty until proven innocent and where due process does not exist; a society where the ends justifies the means. It is the imposition of such a illegitimate society that we choose to openly oppose, and to do so in this manner. █
Thank you for your time and attention,
David Alexander Sugar Chief Facilitator GNU Telephony Project
Summary: Microsoft has commoditised computer ‘skills’ (Microsoft tools), leading to an environment which hardly rewards professionals for their hard work but does benefit criminals a great deal
IF there is something that’s bad for American jobs, it is companies like Microsoft, for reasons we named about an hour ago (don’t believe the myths and propaganda around “job creation”). Microsoft lowers the value of workers everywhere and those whom the company helps seem to be cybercrooks who exploit poor design of its software (sometimes deliberately not secure). Publications may fail to call out Windows, but more importantly they fail to explain how malicious features in Microsoft software (like remote spying and back doors) are “aiding and abetting theft,” according to Mr. Pogson. Here is his new complaint about it (whether this complaint is legitimate is another matter altogether):
There’s news that police have rounded up a bunch using e-mailed viruses to access bank accounts. Why isn’t M$ in the docket for aiding and abetting? Aren’t the people who made a browser/OS in which clicking on or viewing an e-mail installs a virus just as guilty as the thieves? Remember Napster? Why were they shut down and the trash that M$ distributes as an operating system is allowed to wreck the web?
More nations are still being electronically attacked due to Windows. The “bad guys” have a lot of reasons to like a Windows monoculture because it enables them to take money away from honest people. In this digital age we live in, personal security and financial security are left for software to manage and insecure software may lead to financial and personal disasters (including leaks of sensitive information or easily-preventable deaths in a hospital).
“Microsoft exploits state-funded (taxpayers-funded) schools to sustain its harmful monopoly, early on building an army of people who will support Microsoft software free of charge and make IT Microsoft dependent everywhere.”On a separate topic , Microsoft is trying to further solidify the monopoly it has in schools, aided by the Gates Foundation. Dr. Ravitch, for example, warned about it in her new book [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and people in Texas whose role is to bring GNU/Linux to as many children as possible are openly complaining about it right now. Microsoft exploits state-funded (taxpayers-funded) schools to sustain its harmful monopoly, early on building an army of people who will support Microsoft software free of charge and make IT Microsoft dependent everywhere. Moreover, as pointed out in the very same post, Microsoft is harming the software industry and makes computer professionals rather worthless and disposable. To quote one bit:
By making the software ubiquitous, MS is also making the certs ubiquitous, which means that the salary you can demand with any given cert is lower (supply vs demand) regardless of how easy or difficult it is to achieve that cert. Experience still matters in the workforce, so the ones who are able to climb a few rungs up the steep cert ladder in a timely manner are the ones who are more likely to stay employed long enough to gain experience in the first place. The rest? Suffice to say I have met quite a few grey-haired MCSEs over the past year who have been forced to expand their career options. Thankfully, for their sake, none of them have yet delivered a pizza to my door, but even so…
As Dr. Richard Stallman occasionally stresses (not exact quote or paraphrasing), when support is a monopoly it’s badly paid for (the employees, not the customers) and the quality is poor because there is no competition and thus no threat of defection.
“The question is, how long before schools get this memo and serve children’s demands for a change?”A society that’s predominantly built around Free software will value computer professionals a lot more, even globally. There is a reason why Google, which is built on top of a lot of Free software, succeeds and performs so well in that regard.
Word is out that the Gates-funded Goldman Sachs has just downgraded MSFT and it is hardly surprising. Other analysts recently downgraded MSFT [1, 2], claiming explicitly that schoolchildren were discovering software other than Microsoft’s. The question is, how long before schools get this memo and serve children’s demands for a change? They too continue to teach children to serve Microsoft, as long as Gates instructs them to. It’s truly an injustice. █
Summary: Good news to Free software proponents as a ‘proprietariser’ of Linux and defender of software patents finally exits the scene
A SOURCE of agitation against the Free Software Foundation (FSF), Techrights, and few other pro-software freedom groups is no more. The staff was laid off a short while ago and there is no loss to anything but a software patents pool and proprietary software; the winners are probably Android, MeeGo, and software freedom. Bruce Perens was right when he called ACCESS “a sinking ship.” All it did was divide GNOME, belittle Android, smear Richard Stallman, and led to the firing of at least one Free software supporter. That is a terrible legacy to be leaving. █
Translation by Eduardo Landaveri – see the 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA