03.30.21

Social Injustice

Posted in Deception at 8:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”  ― Malcolm X

Summary: Anger is being misdirected and we know who stands to benefit

VENGEANCE outrageous

Hate is contagious
For scapegoats voracious
For facts there’s impatience

Monopolisers galore
Countless abuses to explore
Rotten to the core
There’s always more and more

Mailing list exposed
To say it you’re not supposed
Guilt transposed
The bearded man must be deposed

Facts matter not
The crime was naught
A kick in the butt
A punch in the gut

Monopolisers rejoice
The bearded man has no voice
Riding their Rolls-Royce
While their mob makes noise

Richard Stallman on Privacy Abuses

Posted in Interview at 8:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Richard Stallman spoke to me about privacy 8 years ago; it’s relevant now that IBM does what it did for Germany in the 1930s; “don’t give any data to those systems,” he concludes, and “we have to limit the collection of data”


The Anti-FSF Mob Has a Severe Anger Management and Hate Problem

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 8:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The people who set up the anti-FSF petition (a very loud minority bolstered by crooked media) need to sort out their own manners and foul language issues before they lecture the FSF and its founder on those things

THE thing about manners is, nobody has a monopoly on that. The same is true for “ethics” (which can be subjective in a lot of ways; morality of meat-eating, for instance, is overlooked by so many).

Those who claim to be the undisputed kings of “diversity” and “inclusion” have, in my experience, often alienated minority groups and women. These marginalised (in the context of technology) groups just don’t feel like those preachers of “tolerance” speak for them; instead they serve to annoy and falsely accuse people of “intolerance”, sometimes based on distortions and false pretences. Richard Stallman would be the latest target of many. He may not be the perfect scapegoat, but what the mob (boosted by corporate media) accused him of is greatly exaggerated if not outright false.

“The problem in the community isn’t Stallman’s political blog but a bunch of trolls looking to engineer controversy and create leadership vacuums.”The above video is a relatively polite rant about a new (hours-old) blog post from the person who attacked Richard Stallman just weeks ago (even before the latest phony ‘scandal’ — the so-called ‘scandal’ of merely returning to the institution he founded almost 36 years ago) and attempted to distort the definition of Open Source or Software Freedom. These concern-trolling opportunists who never wrote a single line of code aren’t saying anything about their sponsors profiting from abuse of privacy; nor do they speak about the abhorrent patent policy which harms not only Free software developers but programmers in general.

We thus must conclude that those people are merely parasites inside the community, pretending to care about the very same thing they attack. They try to shun our charismatic leaders, they issue truly nasty threats (bordering on being a campaign of cyberbullying), and then they lecture us on “being nice…”

The problem in the community isn’t Stallman’s political blog but a bunch of trolls looking to engineer controversy and create leadership vacuums. We know who stands to benefit — them and their sponsors (proprietary software and surveillance companies).

A Look at Lagrange, the Most Beautiful Gemini Client

Posted in Free/Libre Software at 6:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: A quick video review or a journey with Lagrange, probably the best software for accessing and navigating Gemini space

WHENEVER I hear of “Lagrange” I assume Joseph-Louis Lagrange, but Lagrange is actually a Gemini client/browser. Since Joseph-Louis Lagrange was also an astronomer it fits neatly into the space theme (capsules, Gemini, Moonlander and so on).

Lagrange Gemini ClientToday, for the first time, I’ve had the opportunity of taking Lagrange for a spin, or a space voyage. I’ve already tried more than half a dozen Gemini clients and this is by far the most powerful one, albeit it takes up quite a bit of RAM. A bigger complaint about it is the packaging format (or “installer” as some might call it). That will be largely a thing of the past once major GNU/Linux distributions add it to repositories (probably inevitable given the rapid expansion of Gemini space).

Here is Lagrange on Flathub. The video above shows it ‘in action’ or in flight. It crashed after about 10 minutes, maybe due to a conflict with the WM/Compositor or some bug in Lagrange itself. Either way, for those who have RAM to spare and want to customise a lot of things Lagrange is probably the best option right now.

IRC Proceedings: Monday, March 29, 2021

Posted in IRC Logs at 2:10 am by Needs Sunlight

HTML5 logs

HTML5 logs

#techrights log as HTML5

#boycottnovell log as HTML5

HTML5 logs

HTML5 logs

#boycottnovell-social log as HTML5

#techbytes log as HTML5

text logs

text logs

#techrights log as text

#boycottnovell log as text

text logs

text logs

#boycottnovell-social log as text

#techbytes log as text

Enter the IRC channels now


IPFS Mirrors

CID Description Object type
 QmNXTfPAc4Yc1wxQt15akHtrqEAqeJYmKik553KKfiTFRJ IRC log for #boycottnovell
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmVW4FYJ6tLmmTnkjptMBMAYkzqXG9SkacE5gPcaMRFzUY IRC log for #boycottnovell
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 QmRPxthQxi4CEzyCp9CywUg2PfpTiPeRvLZwZx4FQviGBa IRC log for #boycottnovell-social
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmVXynoAtkPx4FFmPFHRFWWadFJfcQE2HW5X3E1SLrqFE3 IRC log for #boycottnovell-social
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 QmeLKYpV3xBXRDyJtUdk7UjLqrBZUZn639DuTyG6eeMwVX IRC log for #techbytes
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmRkNWbT7DxmLyqYrzzrAhsEVxZ9VzsDBE9PcKpqMjDMs9 IRC log for #techbytes
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 Qmb9uutxHi6uVFyW5kTPK6vvWrT5boXTmnnSuCvgpFtAeh IRC log for #techrights
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmYd7azj2cWtYfrf78dQN5VHXkDw2mQvNqaALhysXDVXa4 IRC log for #techrights
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs

IPFS logo

Bulletin for Yesterday

Local copy | CID (IPFS): QmQ1yCXoPDRwKojz9SgfepgmHfpLF28G5JZAArDw23jAfs

03.29.21

After Crushing Dialogue With the Union (SUEPO) the EPO’s President Does the Same to Staff Representatives

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: We examine the outcome (or lack thereof) of the latest General Consultative Committee (GCC) meeting at the EPO

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO had a ‘meeting’ with António Campinos, the ‘wunderkind’ (or agent of cover-up) for Benoît Battistelli.

“…it seems that Campinos is totally inadequate for proper social dialogues. He no longer speaks to the union (SUEPO) and now he’s sort of gaslighting staff representatives (not external to the Office).”For those who haven’t seen it yet, IP Kat has finally (for a change) written about the assault on the EPO's tribunals by Campinos (he’s no better than Battistelli!) and the comments are worth reading closely. The comments are always more informative than AstraZeneca’s word-mincing take. The headline is far too polite; they’re breaking the law! In any event, it seems that Campinos is totally inadequate for proper social dialogues. He no longer speaks to the union (SUEPO) and now he’s sort of gaslighting staff representatives (not external to the Office). These representatives (CSC) have just published their “[r]eport on the GCC meeting of 24 March 2021,” focusing on “[g]uidelines for rewards” (lack of them).

They’ve explained to their colleagues, whom they represent: “On 24 March 2021, we had the first GCC meeting of 2021, with only one document on the agenda, namely the General Guidelines on Budget allocation and rewards distribution for 2021. The CSC members of the GCC could only give a negative opinion on this document. The remaining time was used to briefly address some other matters, essentially: the building occupancy levels; the education allowance; the targets in DG1.” (a.k.a. Microsoft clown computing)

“In this publication,” they have noted, “you will find more details, including the written opinion that we sent to the President after the GCC meeting.”

Somebody has sent us a copy, so we’ve decided to reproduce it here as HTML. Our concluding words will follow at the bottom.

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 26.03.2021
sc21042cp

GCC meeting on 24 March 2021 – A short meeting

Guidelines on Rewards 2021

On 24 March 2021, we had the first GCC meeting of 2021, with only one document on the agenda: General Guidelines on Budget allocation and rewards distribution for 2021. Last year’s Guidelines can be found here.

The administration went to great lengths to demonstrate the merits of the 2021 Guidelines. We referred to our earlier publication (“Strong Together” but 30% of staff excluded”) on the 2021 rewards, and asked some questions during the GCC:

- The document still mentions incomplete steps, whereas by now everyone should be at full steps, the transition period from the old career system should have passed already. The administration gave no answer, except to say that some 150-160 staff members will fall under the ‘catch-up mechanism’ through which a staff member who didn’t receive a pensionable reward since four years would now receive one (compared to the 430 colleagues who received a “catch-up” step last year). We also learned that the automatic catch-up mechanism would be maintained in the years to come.
- We also questioned how the calibration process of the reward distribution at VP or PD level can work: what criteria will be used to deviate from the proposals of the line management. We received no answer, though the President stated that every staff member is entitled to know why they were not considered in the reward exercise and that line management should be able to explain this to their staff;
- The document misses any detail on functional allowances (which for the first time have been removed from the rewards budget). According to the President, functional allowances should not be linked to the rewards because they are not based on merit but are part of particularly difficult or complex functions. Examples given were ‘management’ (sic) or ‘BIT staff’ which now have to deal with the spaghetti structure. The budget for functional allowances amount to €2.3m per year.

We stated again that the fundamental flaws of the career system are not being addressed: 40% of staff are lagging behind, receiving less than one step every three years. The new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP) resulted in huge savings for the EPO in 2020, (a bit) more of these savings could have been put into the rewards envelope – still within the limits set by the Administrative Council – such that everyone could have been rewarded. We reminded the President of the burden on parents and our colleagues in BIT. In 2021, 30% of colleagues will not receive a pensionable reward, despite their efforts and despite the exceptional situation due to the pandemic. To this, the administration answered that Staff Representation were dogmatic, and that the EPO could not afford to give everybody a pensionable reward.

Clearly, the CSC members of the GCC could only give a negative opinion on this document (see the annex).

Any other Business

The remaining time was used to briefly address some important matters.

Concerning the New Normal document, we learned that there would not be a New Normal Working Group (we must have misunderstood so before), but that Staff Representation would only be involved if and when there are new policies and regulations to be discussed. We might be invited for the aspects of teleworking – once the proposal is finalised.

Concerning the building occupancy levels, currently set at 15%, we wondered whether the continued isolation of staff at home does not lead to more psychosocial risks, whether stress would not be alleviated if staff had the possibility to come to the Office more often. The President replied that we are the only International Organisation that didn’t have any casualty due to Covid-19, and that the rules have remained the same throughout the pandemic, offering legal certainty. We should not expect any change in occupancy until after Easter.

Concerning the education allowance, we again questioned why this reform is taking place during this pandemic, putting parents and young families under additional stress. We reminded the President of the three promises he made: a cost-neutral reform, site-specific measures and negotiation with staff representation. Instead we have a cost–saving reform (please note that the overall education budget is negligible vs. the EPO yearly budget), with no real site-specific measures (with a lump-sum only approach instead, disregarding the costs actually incurred by the parents), and with our proposal unceremoniously wiped off the table because it is “too expensive” – despite the declining demographics of our population. We insisted that Staff wondered why this is happening, and why now. The administration only replied that all would be sorted out by long(er) transitional measures, during which there would be no savings.

Finally concerning the DG1 targets, although the absolute production targets are indeed decreasing, production is achieved with fewer and fewer staff, resulting in an overall net productivity increase again (on average +2.2% vs 2020). The DQA statistics for one sector now show that one in three grants is not compliant with under Article 54 EPC – read: the subject-matter of the granted claims is not novel. This is what happens when staff is under more and more time pressure. Also, some of the timeliness objectives are exaggerated: the composition of the divisions is sometimes changed if one of its members is absent due to sickness for more than three days, just so that the dossier does not stay on the Patent Workbench for too long.

The administration replied that the production targets have been decreasing year by year (but they seem to keep on ignoring that it’s done with fewer and fewer staff and productivity has been on the rise year by year), and that individuals who have problems with their targets should approach their line manager. We maintain that this is not a problem to be solved on an individual basis, but it is a general, global problem in DG1 The administration should finally realise that it is not a matter of playing at the individual level.

As a closing remark, the administration said that they have been meeting lots of individual staff during 2020. VP1 added that, in his meetings with DG1 staff, he never heard any complaint about production pressure, about the SAP1 or about the education allowance2.

In view of this collective amnesia, we can only encourage you to continue to make you voice heard, also by continuing to send emails to senior management (president@epo.org or vp1@epo.org) to let them know how you feel about the production pressure, the SAP, the education allowance… Please feel free to keep us in copy.

The Central Staff Committee

Annex: opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 1/2021

_______
1 conveniently forgetting that well over 1000 staff members filed the Request for Management Review recently
2 again conveniently overlooking the swaths of emails that staff have sent to the administration


Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 1/2021

President’s Instructions on Rewards for 2021

The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the President’s Instructions on Rewards proposed in GCC/DOC 1/2021.

The document defines the annual budget envelope and reward types, the eligibility and criteria for rewards and the process and timeline.

On the consultation

Since the implementation of the New Career System in 2014, the President’s Instructions on Rewards were submitted each year for information only to the General Consultative Committee (GCC). In essence, the document could not be submitted for vote. The CSC members of the GCC argued each year that such instructions on rewards should be submitted for consultation in compliance with Article 38(2) ServRegs stating that the GCC shall be consulted on “any proposal which concerns the conditions of employment of the whole or part of the staff to whom these regulations apply”.

Back in 2016, Ms Bergot (PD4.3) rejected our arguments and replied (GCC/PV 5/2016, paragraphs 34 & 37) that “discussions about rewards should take place with recognised unions [...] In this context, SUEPO had been re-invited to discuss the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which would lead to its recognition as an EPO union and enable its participation in said discussions.” The GCC members expressed their surprise that union matters could be discussed in the GCC and explained that it was a statutory right of GCC members to be consulted on the instructions on rewards. Nevertheless, Ms Bergot (PD 4.3) maintained her line of argumentation the years after (GCC/PV 4/2017, paragraph 104) and the topic remained for information on the agenda. After his entry into service in 2018, Mr Campinos preferred not to deviate from what he considered to have become the Office’s practice.

For the first time under the New Career System, the President’s Instructions on Rewards were submitted for consultation, in the GCC meeting of 24 March 2021, and Mr Campinos invited the GCC members to send their opinion in writing. Ms Bergot explained this change of practice by a recent opinion of the Appeals Committee (ApC) recommending that the Instructions should be submitted for consultation from now on. At the time of drafting the present GCC opinion, the CSC members of the GCC are still not aware of the exact content of the ApC opinion. Although the change of practice is welcome, it is regrettable that only legal action convinced the Office to comply with its own Service Regulations. Furthermore, it was long overdue after six reward exercises and it shows once again the flaws of our internal justice system as well as in the consultation process.


On the merits

On the pensionable rewards

In the GCC meeting, the administration repeated the arguments exposed in the Intranet publication of 25-02-2021, namely “in view of the efforts of staff to ensure business continuity under the challenging pandemic conditions, up to 70% of staff will be able to receive a pensionable reward. This marks a 10% increase versus the reward cycles of the last 3 years.”
This communication exercise is not convincing. A careful look at the past, shows that Mr Battistelli’s reward exercise in 2015 already defined that up to 70% of staff may receive a pensionable reward (GCC/DOC 12/2015). The subsequent exercises in 2016 (GCC/DOC 11/2016) and 2017 (GCC/DOC 16/2017) were slightly below at 65%.

This should be furthermore put in perspective with the fact that “[s]taff falling in the category of the catch-up mechanism 2021 as described in Annex II are included in the 70%.” (section II. 2. 1) whereas the catch-up mechanism 2020 was under a separate budget1. Therefore, the announced “10% increase” is not “generous” as the administration is trying to say.

The document in ANNEX 1 mentions: “With regards to career progression, the baseline scenario of the Financial Study 2019 corresponds to granting a step to 60% of eligible staff. Every 5% increase in quota increases the coverage gap with around EUR 160 million.” It gives the impression that staff is more of a liability than an asset. In the meeting, Ms Simon (VP4) stressed that the 70% should be seen as “a very generous offer which bring strain on our finances in the long run”. Management should actually not worry about the financial consequences of their “offer” which is not even generous. The last reported values in 2020 for the EPO funds (EPOTIF and RFPSS) prove that they performed EUR 3,9 billion2 better than foreseen by the baseline scenario. While management is running out of convincing arguments, the EPO continues to make surpluses of up to EUR 310 million3 in 2020.

We consider that a purely competition-based career system excluding 30% of eligible staff is not fit for purpose and we would be ready to discuss within a Working Group a performance-based system defining a minimum career, an average career and a fast career. Regrettably, in the GCC meeting, Mr Campinos simply reproached us for having a “dogmatic” position in favour of automaticity. When the reward statistics4 actually show that 40% of eligible staff got less than 3 steps in 6 reward exercises, it is high time to come to a pragmatic revision of the New Career System.

On the budget
In the GCC meeting, the administration presented the available budget for pensionable and non-pensionable rewards of EUR 22,600 million in 2021 as an increase over the last years: EUR 21,300 million in 2019 (GCC/DOC 4/2019), and EUR 22,000 million in 2020 (GCC/DOC 11/2020).

However, one should compare budgets if they are of the same nature. The budget for 2021 includes a catch-up mechanism which will apply to 150-160 colleagues. But the above-cited budget for 2020 did not include a catch-up mechanism. The catch-up

______
1 “One-off measure”, President Communiqué of 13-01-2020, “this one-off measure has been decoupled from the next reward envelope. The sum will be taken out of the 2019 budget and will not come from, or affect, the funds available for the next rewards exercise.”
2 “Virtual Floor Meetings – Why 1 day strike”, page 29, LSCMN publication of 11-12-2020 (sc20022mp)
3 CA/56/20
4 “Virtual Floor Meetings – Why 1 day strike”, page 13, LSCMN publication of 11-12-2020 (sc20022mp)


mechanism 2020 of EUR 861.000 applied to 437 colleagues came from a separate budget5.

The overall budget for 2020 of EUR 22,861 million was therefore higher than the one Mr Campinos offers in 2021 for the work of staff during the pandemic.

In preparation of the meeting, the Central Staff Committee already explained6 how the 2021 budget for rewards was reduced by EUR -3,6 million compared to the one in the draft budget 2021. This cut came on top of massive unexpected savings of EUR 18 million made on the salary mass because of the disastrous application of the salary adjustment procedure 2020. It shows that, contrary Mr Campinos’ promise after the Financial Study 2019, when the Organisation makes more savings than expected, these are not redistributed to staff.

On the lack of transparency: functional allowances

Until now, the budget for functional allowances was mentioned in the President’s Instructions on rewards. In the 2020 budget, they amounted to EUR 2,3 million. This year, no figure is communicated yet, besides the estimated percentage of 0,3% on the basic salaries referred to in CA/D 1/20 (page 144) which would amount to around EUR 3 million. In the meeting, Mr Campinos explained that functional allowances relate to the function rather to a reward and should thus mentioned elsewhere. But where? No more clarification was given in the meeting.

Initially, functional allowances were meant to compensate employees in Job Groups 4-6 for temporarily taking on tasks above and beyond what is in their job description. This is for instance the case for Team Managers. Obviously, this did not apply in the beginning to managers in Job Groups 1-3 since the New Career System awarded them an increase in salary for higher responsibilities.

With GCC/DOC 7/2017, management amended Article 12(2) ServRegs to open up the possibility of getting a functional allowance also to … Management. Concomitantly, the functional allowance was increased from a maximum of “an amount equivalent to two steps in the current grade” to “two monthly basic salaries per year”.

The Office stated that this was justified for “the sake of efficiency and flexibility”. Annex I to the new Circular 364 indicates that duties and constraints deserving a functional allowance are for “functions of high responsibility (…) organizational and technical change management etc.” One can easily suspect self-service and how the trend will continue if the award of functional allowances remains untransparent and not submitted to statutory consultation. After having opened the cookie jar to help themselves, management is now hiding the cookie jar. We wonder whether management will ever increase the functional allowances for Team Managers in DG1 as it was only adjusted once since its introduction, harmonizing the amount given to Team Managers in different grades.

On the lack of transparency: performance criteria
The criteria for granting a reward still consist of a broad non-exhaustive list which is interpreted differently among directorates and teams.

______
5 “One-off measure”, President Communiqué of 13-01-2020, “This one-off measure will take effect as of January 2020 and represents a total investment of around EUR 861 000.”
6 “Reward exercise for pandemic year 2020 “Strong Together” but 30% of staff excluded”, CSC paper of 22-03-2021 (sc21040cp)


For steps, one of the criteria is the “achievement of the expected objectives and competencies corresponding to grade, seniority and job profile” and for promotions “proven performance and expected objectives corresponding to the grade continuously achieved over a long period of time.” However, such expectation levels are not defined and the so-called corridors of “production/productivity” applied in DG1 continue to be deliberately hidden from staff.

Colleagues are hardly ever given reasons as to why they have or have not received a reward, and how they should perform to get one in the future. The fact that appraisal and reward are not linked do not contribute to transparency either. Only the few who dare to file management review start to have the beginning of answer which raises even further questions on the arbitrariness of the exercise.

On the lack of transparency: calibration by PDs and VPs
As in the previous years, “[w]hile performance is a pre-condition, it may not be sufficient to warrant a reward in view of other elements taken into account for its attribution such a comparison with peers, collaborative behaviour, priority of the Office and contribution to the Office’s achievement”.

This broad statement allows management to exclude anyone at PD or VP level from the reward exercise during the so-called calibration process in an arbitrary manner. The term “peers” is not substantiated by any document: are the peers from the same team? from the same grade? from the same directorate? from the same technical field?

On the collaborative bonuses
In the GCC meeting, Ms Simon (VP4) explained that “this year, the Office will put much more emphasis on collaboration to go to a one Office concept and therefore half of the EUR 10,5 million bonus budget will reward collaboration”. The criteria for defining collaboration again lack transparency.

The word “collaboration” appears to be a communication exercise designed to hide the fact even during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Office decided to maintain in a morally questionable way a competition-based system that goes actually blatantly against the values of cooperation. The collaboration bonuses appear to be a fig leaf on the actual exclusion of 30% of eligible staff from a pensionable reward. Such a regressive and non-inclusive policy is impossible to reconcile with the “Strong Together” message the Office is trying to convey.

Conclusion

The many pitfalls identified by staff and their representation over the last six years of application of the New Career System still remain unsolved. The reward exercise is still a lottery which is unique among International Organisations.

For the above reasons, the CSC members of the GCC give a negative opinion on document GCC/DOC 1/2021.

The CSC members of the GCC

From the above, one is left to conclude that the Office management simply isn’t listening to staff at all. It’s just milking the institution, doing loads of illegal things, and nobody will be held accountable for that.

Microsoft Leaders and Supporters Desert Sinking Ship

Posted in Deception, IBM, Microsoft at 7:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: With Microsoft’s co-founder having been found to be closely connected to someone who trafficked thousands of underage girls for sex it’s hardly surprising that Microsoft is sinking and old leaders move away; we examine the history of Microsoft with focus on the past 20 years

ZDNet: Our sponsor is on fire and sinkingTHE state of Microsoft is appalling. Don’t be misled by what they pay the media to say. With Ballmer ousted amid many other high-level departures (we used to cover those closely until about a decade ago) it’s hardly surprising that Microsoft creates a fake expectation of growth (or fake prospects) while aligning itself more closely with the military. Bill Gates ‘left’ the Board last year, the layoffs accelerated around the same time (including Azure layoffs), and nowadays more money is spent on bribing/manipulating the media than on R&D. GitHub users are walking away (it’s hard to just buy market share as it’s becoming another CodePlex, just like SoapBox, the so-called YouTube competitor). There are also large-scale LinkedIn layoffs, Skype users walk away (Microsoft had almost a monopoly in VoIP, but that rapidly slipped away), and we mentioned the collapse of IIS earlier today. Internet Explorer/Edge became just a niche browser (they’re just copying Chrome now), Microsoft became totally insignificant in the embedded space, Windows Phone users barely exist anymore, and Chromebooks rapidly replace Windows in many sectors, especially education.

The audio above discusses the emergence of Microsoft (owing to IBM’s deal, set up by the mother of Bill Gates because of her family/dynasty connections), the peaking in the 1990s, and the rapid fall over the past 20 or so years. Microsoft was founded in 1975, 8 years before the GNU Project, and nowadays Microsoft is increasingly irrelevant, void of any substance or merit.

FSF and Politics

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 6:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

RMS roots

Summary: The paper above is not new, but it helps connect the FSF to politics. “BTW,” says the person who sent us a tip about it, “speaking of right-wing, I’ve found a 20 pages paper a few days ago, where a person from Sweden traces a direct link between Popper and Hayek (the fathers of neo-liberalism) and the things Eric Raymond says to distinguish OSS/OSI from Libre/FSF. I loved it, as is the kind of work I like to do. It’s also a good example of the things I usually try to warn when talking to software people and call for “politics”, “culture”, “society”, “history”, and stuff like that. Here’s the link.” [PDF]

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts