"Linux" Foundation, Besieged by Microsoft, Isn't About Science But Against Science and Against Facts
(and for Microsoft Dogma, Microsoft Domination, Microsoft Money)
Yesterday we wrote about a FUD machine powered by Microsoft, alluding to the Linux Foundation. As we've just explained, science (or ordinary scientific principles) is under attack. The attacker is the marketing industry. Regarding the Foundation (of money), recall the following: A Severe Linux Foundation Conflict of Interest (Microsoft Staff in Charge of Linux Foundation) | New IRS Filing Shows That the Most Dominant Company in the Linux Foundation is Microsoft
We're only just noticed Public Knowledge, akin to the above-mentioned "Foundation", saying that what's needed is "Building a Better Big Tech Mouse Trap: Designing the Digital Platform Commission" (warped views on antitrust enforcement while omitting the conflict of interest; "Big Tech keeps getting bigger," they say, but Microsoft is inside their Board).
Noticing a trend yet? So-called "Foundations", even ones called "Linux", are run/governed by Microsoft. This can go very wrong. Sort of like Musk (MElon) and Cheeto working to undermine the US economy for personal gain. In MElon's case there aren't even elections. The seats are for sale, just like in the "Linux" (for sale) Foundation.
The "Linux Foundation" isn't about Linux; it's run by some people who actively work to undermine Linux and whose salary is paid 100% to advance Microsoft's agenda from within "Linux". Even a blind person can follow the very simple evidence.
What is the main reason we bring this up again?
It's this podcast of OpenSSF (Open Source Security Foundation), part of the Linux Foundation though both the "Linux" Foundation and OpenSSF are captured by Microsoft. This "Linux" Foundation junk is now boosting a non-technical Microsoft employee (PR person doing openwashing, first from Edelman), who casually spreads security FUD about Linux (we gave examples in the recent part), while having zero grasp of computer security. We try not to name "Robin Bender Ginn" because then some people might try to allege we pick on her due to her gender. Nothing could be further from the truth! A captured institution can be captured irrespective of the genders/races/sexual preferences of the corporate actors. It's just easier to bait or mis-characterise legitimate critics, insinuating their true motives are tainted by veiled bigotry.
Having spoken to an associate about Microsoft moles, he said that "Microsofters have neither the skillset the mindset nor the integrity to retrofit and become IT staff or productive developers [...] in pseudo-Latin: "illegitimi non carborundum" [...] Microsoft tries to isolate everyone even as they isolate their own people in a cult-like fashion in part through the use of odd, non-standard terminology and a total lack of a lexicon to translate between microsoftianism and computer science terminology".
In the case of the Linux Foundation, they actively avoid talking about back doors or other severe security lapses, instead they revere Bill Gates. Follow the money [1, 2]. It's all about money.
Those people don't talk for us. Who's "us"? People who actually use Linux, unlike the Linux Foundation.
It's not unthinkable that the technical industry has been hijacked by nontechnical "industrialists" or that the medical industry [sic] has been captured by greedy businesspeople. In the case of the "Linux" Foundation - i.e. people who may boss some programmers - it seems like charlatans, oligarchs and marketing people are nowadays in charge. It's a big problem that I saw when I worked for universities (for over a decade). █