Summary: Microsoft inverses truths, calling itself the opposite of what it really is as it tries to cast proprietary software as "open"

MICROSOFT'S relationship with the pharmaceutical cartel is an issue we covered here before [1, 2]. It's a broad topic and life is at stake.

Glyn Moody has discovered that Microsoft uses something it calls the "Biology Foundation" to spread shameless lies that would make even George Orwell turn in his grave. Watch how Microsoft describes itself:

Gotta love the segue from "strong tradition of open development, code sharing and cross-platform support" to "here, take these patent-encumbered .NET Framework toys to play with".

The point being, of course, that once you have dutifully installed the .NET framework, with all the patents that Microsoft claims on it, and become locked into it through use and habit, you are part of the Microsoft-controlled ecosystem. And there you are likely to stay, since Microsoft doesn't even pretend any of this stuff will be ported to other platforms.

We have previously shown how the Gates Foundation too is excluding Windows rivals under the guise of goodwill. Gates Keepers continues exploring the things which the Gates Foundation hides from the public, noting that there is currently a "media blitz". The author notes: "There is a media blitz being conducted by the Gates Foundation these days. Lest we forget about Bill Gates on November 11, you can see one of his most prolific fans talk with him in New York. Bill would autograph books at this event but he has not 'written' one in a decade. Though you can bet Matthew will be flogging his new edition."

“It's about reversal, it's about changing terminology”More on the PR efforts of the Gates Foundation (ensuring the media tells only one side of the story): "A corporate communication person is just what the Gates Foundation needs to lead their corporate communications. Why communicate with communities anyway? And hey, isn't Glaxo Smith Kline Tachi Yamada's old outfit?"

Going back to Moody's analysis, some days ago he wrote about the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) being subverted [1, 2] by front groups associated with Microsoft [1, 2, 3]. They defined "closed" as "nearly open". It's about reversal, it's about changing terminology. The OSI has just written about the subject:

The Open Source movement is consistent with a larger democratic proposition that the more that we can all be involved in affairs that concern them, the better off we'll all be. But sometimes the involvement of some people, whose concern is the maintenance of monopoly and control, doesn't serve the great good. Glynn Moody uncovers the sinister results that are threatening to emerge from a committee in Europe in a blog posting titled EU Wants to Re-define "Closed" as "Nearly Open".

Yesterday we wrote about Microsoft's attempt to combat Free/libre CMS software using pseudo-open source called Oxite. It's just a ramp for a bloated, proprietary software stack. We warned about it one year ago and now we find that a project called Orchard is intended to achieve something similar.

Microsoft has a secret, although it's not completely secret. They are getting ready to offer a new open source content management application code named Orchard.

This is not Free software. It's a bunch of stuff (or fluff) that enables Microsoft to sell proprietary software like Windows, IIS, SharePoint, and SQL Server. These are prerequisites. This should be labeled what it really is, and it's not open source. it's even worse than open core; it's Windowsware. ⬆