Bonum Certa Men Certa

Bill Gates: “Where Are We on This Jihad?” (Against Linux at Intel)

In previous posts we mentioned Intel because Microsoft was trying to turn Intel's attention to Windows, at the expense of Linux. The following exhibits are what one reader called "the deep concern at Microsoft when Intel switched their internal industrial dev OS to GNU/Linux."



Added at the bottom we have exhibit px07022 [PDF] and exhibit px07068 [PDF] from Comes vs Microsoft, under Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

With help from an unnamed reader we highlight bits of the exhibits that show the relevance of this to GNU/Linux.

Here is an E-mail Bill Gates wrote to Eric Rudder, whose take on .NET we've also just mentioned.

---- Original Message ---- From: Bill Gates Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:07 PM To: Hike Porter; Eric Rudder Cc: Jim Allchin; Steve Ballmer; David W. Williams; Brian Schuster Subject: RE: My personal take on INTEL

I went and read the enclosure

I think we will have to live without a Chinese wall clause for the front end of the compiler.

It's too bad that all source code isn't Chinese wall but since Intel views their processor specifications as equivalent to source code we don't want all of these things subject to Chinese wall restrictions.

If we can move ahead having the CLR and backends having Chinese wall provisions then we should take the risk relative to the front end.

They can't still move our trade secrets or code to another front end but they can have common people work on those things.

Are there other issues outstanding here? Did I misunderstand the discussion?


One reader, who calls this "the Intel Chinese non-Wall," explains that what Gates essentially tells is: "Let's wait until we get a look at the processor specs before invoking a Chinese wall on the compiler. If Intel raises objections we'll say the non-Chinese proviso only applied to the front-end."

Further, we have:

From: Eric Rudder Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:08 AM To: Bill Gates; Steve Ballmer Cc: Jim AIIchin; Christine Turner; Dorothy Veith; Debbie Hill Subject: My personal take on INTEL Importance: High

[...]

We do not have a signed agreement yet with Intel to work on the CLR and Compiler. I am actually optimistic we will close on this, but it's ridiculous that it languished for 10 months before I got here, and I have had to personally spend hours driving.

We need help on:

- Floating Point - CLR - 64-bit

FP is a case where we have fallen behind Linux, thanks to Intel's great work w. Linux compilers. They can help us with the Math libraries and some OpenMP stuff. We want access to their benchmark/test suites. it's crazy that we can't get Intel to do Windows first, then Linux (if they must)

[...]

2. If we don’t get Intel off of Linux internally (the failed EDA project) - we will never get the *cultural* alignment that we want. There are simply too many folks at Intel who use/love the stuff and want to improve it. We can *not* stop trying to win this project.


A reader's interpretation is as follows: "Let's get Intel to clone their Floating Point Linux 'stuff' on Windows, as a stratagem to kill internal Intel Linux projects, let's get Intel to transfer their people to our project."

Also interesting is the following part:

I also have a personal ask that if we do the 64bit work that we get INTEL.COM to be a 64bit ASP.NET sites.


Intel runs GNU/Linux in its Web sites, so this favour never worked out on the face of it.

The second exhibit about this is concerned with "getting Intel to dogfood Windows," to use Microsoft's own words. Bill Gates inquires, "Where are we on this Jihad?" Yes, Microsoft has used the term "Jihad" -- albeit internally -- on quite a few occasions. Gates also can't spell Otellini's name (Intel's CEO). He writes "Ottelini".

Here are some highlights that refer to content rather than vocabulary:

From: Brian Valentine Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 5:23 PM To: Srini Koppolu; S. Somasegar, Bill Veghte; Vinod Anantharaman, Doug Miller, Chris Ray; Eric Rudder; Ann Marie McLeod Cc: Jim Allchin Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

Please make sure Ann Marie is on these threads - I have added her here.

As far as going after them -- they are important from the perspective of getting Intel to dogfood Windows. This would be a big thing we could both talk about, etc We want to them on Windows We do need to look at the all the ISVs, etc and make sure that we have good programs in place to move them.

[...]

----- Original Message ---- From: S. Somasegar Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:35 PM To: Bill Veghte; Vinod Anantharaman; Doug Miller; Chris Ray; Srini Koppolu; Brian Valentine; Eric Rudder Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

I agree on ROI, etc. With Intel though, it is a crime that these guys are running Linux and it is a shame that we can’t get them to move to Windows for their core development systems. I also think that unless it is a top-down initiative at Intel to "just make this happen", this will not get traction no matter how much we try.


I happen to know that Intel engineers are indeed using GNU/Linux (in part) because my brother in law works there. Overall, this second exhibit makes Microsoft look pitiful. It's chasing Intel and the EDA ISVs just don't want Windows. The same goes for Intel, which talks about disdain for Windows NT ("EDA ISVs got burnt with poor experiences with Windows NT, are wary of taking steps in this direction").




Appendix A: Comes vs. Microsoft - exhibit px07022, as text








From: Mike Porter Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:47 PM To: Peter Biddle Subject: FW: My personal take on INTEL Tracking: Recipient   Read      Peter Biddle  Read: 11/21/2001 1:58 PM

It’s been a long week

---- Original Message ---- From: Bill Gates Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:07 PM To: Hike Porter; Eric Rudder Cc: Jim Allchin; Steve Ballmer; David W. Williams; Brian Schuster Subject: RE: My personal take on INTEL

I went and read the enclosure

I think we will have to live without a Chinese wall clause for the front end of the compiler.

It's too bad that all source code isn't Chinese wall but since Intel views their processor specifications as equivalent to source code we don't want all of these things subject to Chinese wall restrictions.

If we can move ahead having the CLR and backends having Chinese wall provisions then we should take the risk relative to the front end.

They can't still move our trade secrets or code to another front end but they can have common people work on those things.

Are there other issues outstanding here? Did I misunderstand the discussion?

----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Porter Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:47 AM To: Bill Gates; Eric Rudder Cc: Jim AIIchin; Steve Ballmer; David W. Williams; Brian Schuster

Subject: RE: My personal take on INTEL

Additional hardware is already on the way, but I think they are all ear-marked for the NT Base team. I will research. Eric, we can get you systems. I’ll ask for 200, but we’ll see what we can get... production is much more Iimited on McKinley than on Merced. They are severely constrained... we have the vast majority of what they can produce onsite.

Eric, I think you are dead on about the EDA project. BrianV drove this hard, had an entire team in place to address every issue they came up with... and they did completely address that list: Intel still didn’t migrate. I believe that was at least an 18 month project led by Stephanie Boesch, who did a great job. Intel did seem to express renewed interest in pushing their internal org here in the exec review yesterday. It would be a huge step in fixing the cultural issues. That’s why we’ve been pushing them for over 2 years on this at Bill and Steve’s level.

MS-CC-MDL 000000480159 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




Eric, we should set up a meeting between you and Renee, who control allocation of the resources (bodies and systems). She’s asked to meet you and she needs to hear your concerns. Well try and set that up in the next week.

The patent license will help, but it will not eliminate many of the specific concerns that are coming up, and won’t solve any of Eric’s stated concerns. We received our first draft of the compiler DA on June 8th. To my calculations, that means 5 months. I’m not sure where the 10 month figure came from. We thought we were ready to sign this week, with an agreement based on our standardized template agreement, but Eric asked us to go back to Intel and re-negotiate one more time for an additional change to the Chinese firewall provision. I pushed back this morning in email to Eric that we are at a point were doing what Eric suggests will set a precedent we have jointly agreed not to set with Intel at a broader relationship. We don’t ask for Chinese walls on anything except "Crown Jewels" (i.e. compiler backends, OS kernels, Intel RTL "silicon" code, etc.) or Intel would reciprocate (based on discussions with them) and try to put the same Chinese firewalls in place with us on their led book materials (and they’d LOVE to do that to us given our work with AMD) I told Eric I’d go back to Intel, bet only if JimAII or BilIG agrees that this is worth risking in the overall context of the broader relationship, knowing full well that we will get asked to start doing the same thing and they will have to get involved in the future. Details on the specifics of Eric’s issues are in the attached email thread. I am still waiting far a decision on how to proceed here.. which is only adding time to clock.

----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Gates Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:07 AM To: Eric Rudder Cc: Jim AIIchin; Mike Porter; Steve Ballmer Subject: RE: My personal take on INTEL

This email was very helpful.

We expect to close some kind of patent cross license in the next month which should help get things going better.

We used the example of helping us with our compilers as a prime example where things should be easy to get going.

Not getting hardware surprises me. Mike Porter should be able to help with that.

--- Original Message --- From: Eric Rudder Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:08 AM To: Bill Gates; Steve Ballmer Cc: Jim AIIchin; Christine Turner; Dorothy Veith; Debbie Hill Subject: My personal take on INTEL Importance: High

I know you are meeting w. Intel today - here are some thoughts I would like to share and some status. (Chris, D/D, if Bill and Steve can see this mail before the mtg, that would be great.)

1. It’s way too hard to get anything done w. these guys. We need a new master agreement, where a PM can simply work off a template to create a new "project." in the absence of this it takes MONTHS to get things done that should literally take minutes.

We do not have a signed agreement yet with Intel to work on the CLR and Compiler. I am

2/21/2003

MS-CC-MDL 000000480160 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




actually optimistic we will close on this, but it's ridiculous that it languished for 10 months before I got here, and I have had to personally spend hours driving.

We need help on:

- Floating Point - CLR - 64-bit

FP is a case where we have fallen behind Linux, thanks to Intel's great work w. Linux compilers. They can help us with the Math libraries and some OpenMP stuff. We want access to their benchmark/test suites. it's crazy that we can't get Intel to do Windows first, then Linux (if they must.)

The CLR work would mostly be around optimization for XScale and tuning. Intel may say they are doing work around this - the truth is we are seeing very little results.

64bit is the biggest no-brainer. In addition to help from people (for both compiler and JIT), we also have an ask for hardware. My group wanted me to ask for 200 boxes! I think this is too many, but even 25 could make a big difference (and yes, we are smart abt using terminal server, etc -- we have many, many configs.) I also have a personal ask that if we do the 64bit work that we get INTEL.COM to be a 64bit ASP.NET sites.

2. If we don’t get Intel off of Linux internally (the failed EDA project) - we will never get the *cultural* alignment that we want. There are simply too many folks at Intel who use/love the stuff and want to improve it. We can *not* stop trying to win this project.

My two cents.

-Eric

2/21/2003

MS-CC-MDL 000000480161 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




Appendix B: Comes vs. Microsoft - exhibit px07068, as text






From: Brian Valentine Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:45 PM To: Mike Porter; Bill Gates Cc: Jim AIIchin; Ann Made McLeod Subject: RE: Intel’s design engineers and Windows

We are all over them on this and will keep trying to get them to move. Attached is the whole thread that is currently running on this.

----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Porter Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:34 PM To: Bill Gates Cc: Jim AIIchin; Brian Valentine Subject: RE: Intel’s design engineers and Windows

Sorry It’s taken so much time to investigate. BrianV put a team together to nail this and in our opinion we did everything possible and had a pretty solid solution. Intel said they felt we didn’t meet every need, although I’ve been pushing for the list of "how we failed them" for over 2 weeks now. Bottom line, IMHO, Intel doesn’t want to deal with their internal politics and "sell" this transition internally. Think about our development org. bright, extremely talented and opinionated folks... and at Intel, the developer crowd was raised on Unix/Linux. They just don’t WANT to move. Also, this was originally being driven by Albert, and that changed to Gelsinger for a while I’m not sure given their recent changes internally who owns this. This may be an area that Otellini could help.

Given that you are meeting with Paul on the 14th of this month (and we have a prep meeting on the 6th), is there any data I can get you to aid in your discussion with Paul?

----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Gates Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 1:41 PM To: Mike Porter Cc: Jim AIIchin; Brian Valentine Subject: Intel’s design engineers and Windows

Where are we on this Jihad?

Do I need to be calling and emailing Ottelini to get this back on track??

Every day that goes by is a bad one for us on this. Despite the difficulty we need to draw the line in the sand on this one for a lot of reasons.

MS-CC-MDL 000000406401 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




From: Brian Valentine Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 5:23 PM To: Srini Koppolu; S. Somasegar, Bill Veghte; Vinod Anantharaman, Doug Miller, Chris Ray; Eric Rudder; Ann Marie McLeod Cc: Jim Allchin Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

Please make sure Ann Marie is on these threads - I have added her here.

As far as going after them -- they are important from the perspective of getting Intel to dogfood Windows. This would be a big thing we could both talk about, etc We want to them on Windows We do need to look at the all the ISVs, etc and make sure that we have good programs in place to move them.

------ Original Message ------ From: Srini Koppolu Sent: SatIJrday, February 02, 2002 6:46 AM To: S. Somasegar; Bill Veghte; Vinod Anantharaman; Doug Miller; Chris Ray; Brian Valentine; Eric Rudder Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

It would have been worse if we haven't got the CAD ISV apps working on Windows. Atleast no one can make an argument that the Windows is not ready for high end apps

Let’s engage with Intel for some more time and do some research on EDA space. But if it is a no go, we better cut our losses soon and not get into rat hole with Intel for months/years like in previous cases.

----- Original Message ---- From: S. Somasegar Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:35 PM To: Bill Veghte; Vinod Anantharaman; Doug Miller; Chris Ray; Srini Koppolu; Brian Valentine; Eric Rudder Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

I agree on ROI, etc. With Intel though, it is a crime that these guys are running Linux and it is a shame that we can’t get them to move to Windows for their core development systems. I also think that unless it is a top-down initiative at Intel to "just make this happen", this will not get traction no matter how much we try.

---- Original Message ---- From: Bill Veghte Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:31 PM To: Vinod Anantharaman; S. Somasegar; Doug Miller; Chris Ray; Srini Koppolu; Brian Valentine; Eric Rudder Subject: RE: Intel EDA migration

Of all the different Unix migration targets, I am pretty skeptical that EDA is the most leveraged for us to go after where

Leveraged = (we can win with reasonable investment)+ (large economic return for MS relative to investment)+ (big credibility boost).

2/5/2003

MS-CC-MDL 000000406402 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




I am much, much concerned about all the different corporate LOB apps on wall street, insurance, etc. those are the targets where we want to win and get the PR around.

----- Original Message ---- From: Vinod Anantharaman Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:49 PM To: S. Somasegar; Doug Miller; Chris Ray; Srini Koppolu; Brian Valentine; Bill Veghte Subject: Intel EDA migration

Summary of a conf call Doug & I had with Intel today, re: migrating their ECAD / EDA environment from Linux/UNlX to Windows.

Background

* Intel President Paul OtteIlini asked his team to work with MS, figure out what it took to move their EDA environment to Windows. Soma & Renee James at Intel had a recent discussion on this

* Intel ran a EDA migration project back in early 99, to move to NT4 - they got badly burned on this due to stability & software migration issues, and recommended going with Linux instead.

* MS got involved around mid 99, did a joint project where Intel evaluated Wfn2k + SFU vs. Linux, and a list of about 100 or so MS work-items were identified. In the end, after 18 months of engagement or so, this didn’t pan out- some of the reasons are listed in the first email attached above. Intel went ahead w/ the Linux route.

Attendees

* MS: DougMil, VlnodA

* Intel: Greg Spirakis (VP, ECAD Design Tools), Elwood Coslett & Kevin Wheeler (program managers in Engg. Compufing / IT), Mike Webb (don’t have has designation, he facilitated this conf)

Meeting Summary

Intel summarized their migration requirements thus:

o Primary order bit is that MS must convince the top EDA players to move over to Windows. Intel firmly believes this is what it takes for them to consider moving to Windows. They were very crisp/ up-front on this point.

o They use about 100 odd tools from 8-10 different vendors, will share the list with us (will include the usual cast of characters: Cadence, Synopsis, Unigraphics,..)

o Additionally, there’s a big ecosystem of tools & scripts they’ve developed around the major ISV apps, so all of these things have to be migrated as well. Once the ISV apps become available on Windows, they would need to find resources for the Windows migration, and as they said "take the risk associated with such a switch-over"

Intel’s perspechve on what’s changed since we last engaged with them:

o EDA ISVs got burnt with poor experiences with Windows NT, are wary of taking steps in this direction

o ISVs have been able to move to Linux easily - ported their code more easily, able to share code b/w UNIX / Linux, interop story is good. So they’ve been able to get cost benefits of IA hw w/Linux as a viable alternative OS

o Chicken & egg problem that ISVs still see no customer demand for Windows versions

o ISVs are trying to reduce the total # of platforms they support

2/5/2003

MS-CC-MDL 000000406403 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL




cuts their R&D, support etc. costs. Ideal scenario for them is that UNIX disappears and they support only Linux.

Intel’s perspective on what’s not changed since the last time

o Continued need for interop (b/w UNIX and Windows, in our case) o Continued need for stability of environment, OS, shell environment, scripts, etc.

Linux apparently meets over 90% of their current EDA needs. They indicated a few aspects where Windows does better (but qualified these as being "less critical" requirements)

o Intel developers prefer using Windows / VS as their dev environment for all their ANSI C, C++ apps

o IT would prefer to support a single OS platform, and they clearly need their Windows desktops

o Better integration with Windows desktop / Office, although they said they are able to do this OK with their current X based solution

When asked to put themselves in our shoes, here’s what they said they’d do (nothing earth shattering here...)

o Find a unique value prop that will convince EDA ISVs about the advantage of supporting Windows & .NET. They said they’re happy to help us with develop this, since they’re familiar with the terrain.

o Point out MS successes in related spaces like mechanical CAD etc. & how we created value in those ecosystems

Next Steps

- We'll get the list of key EDA ISVs that Intel depends on

- We’ll get feedback from Intel & their customers on Windows-UNIX interop issues, feature ideas, etc (some of their customers mentioned some issues here, note that Intel is currently on the SFU 3.0 beta program)

-In light of Intel’s position wrt to EDA ISVs, the right folks at MS (EPG?) should revisit the issue of whether we want to go after that business again Clearly this is a long term / uphill battle, if we want to go after it. I’ve attached a second mail thread where this topic was raised m March 2001, no decision was made back then to pursue this market aggressively. There was also an associated PPT Chris Ray and co. put together regarding the EDA space, I’m happy to fwd to anybody who’s interested.

-Vinod

2/5/2003

MS-CC-MDL 000000406404 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL


Recent Techrights' Posts

Ubuntu Desktop Director of Engineering Has Only One Blog Post. It Promotes Microsoft Windows.
Remember that even 15 years ago (more or less, maybe 16 years ago) Canonical appointed a a 'former' Microsoft manager (Spencer) to lead Ubuntu on the desktop
IBM Red Hat on "era of cloud computing", pushing "hey hi" (AI) hype in Microsoft Azure
LLM slop might actually be more benign than Microsoft promotion
Corruption and Rule-Breaking Prevail at the European Patent Office (EPO), Europe's Second-Largest Institution
The law does not really exist at the EPO; it can be perceived as merely a "recommendation"
404 Media Says "Workers at NASA Told to Drop Everything to Scrub Mentions of Indigenous People, Women from Its Websites" But There's Also Accessibility in the Firing Line
In the case of abandoning accessibility, everyone stands to be hurt and proprietary software can be brought in to replace standards
 
Tons of Anti-Linux 'Articles' Published by Bots (LLMs), Maybe Microsoft's
Upon closer inspection, all this FUD turned out to be LLM garbage
Gemini Links 06/02/2025: Voicemail Sucks and Night of Lights
Links for the day
Links 06/02/2025: YouTube Takedowns Out of Control, 'DOGE' Breaking Laws
Links for the day
statCounter: More Countries Where Windows is Around 1% "Market Share" (People Have Moved to Android/Linux)
in some nations Windows is already 1% or less
When BetaNews Writes Real Articles About "Linux" They Promote Windows
The Web is in a bad state. We need to at least try to correct this.
Gemini Links 06/02/2025: Cynicism and "Real Magic on the C64"
Links for the day
Links 06/02/2025: New Sanctions, Layoffs, and Executive Orders
Links for the day
Distros and Desktop Environments, Devices
GNU/Linux focused
New Rumours of IBM Layoffs in 2025, IBM Consulting Still Struggles, Based on Management
"Hey hi" (AI) has been a common excuse for business failure
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, February 05, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, February 05, 2025
Links 05/02/2025: Kessler Syndrome and News Online
Links for the day
statCounter: Monaco Now 7% GNU/Linux ("Proper")
GNU/Linux, not counting Chromebooks, is on the rise
Many Parts of Google Lose Money
It's quite apparent that many parts of Google - even some that rely on ad revenue or push ads - aren't profiting
European Internet Forum (EIF) is Dominated by American Corporations and Microsoft Lobbyists, Staff Take the Lead
Should the officials over here or the European Parliament pay attention to these people?
Links 05/02/2025: Connection without Connectivity and Unionised Grocery Workers
Links for the day
Just Because People on Top of the Microsoft Pyramid Made a Lot of Money Doesn't Mean Microsoft is Wealthy
The bigger they are the harder they fall
Gemini Links 05/02/2025: Learning, Madman Ruling a Mad Country, Back in Geminispace
Links for the day
statCounter Shows "WIntel" Chasing a Dying Market
Microsoft acts as if it's running out of money
Free Software Foundation, Inc. (FSF) Still Raising Money, Richard Stallman Contributes
total exceeding $430k
A Lot of Stuff About "Linux" in Google News is LLM Slop, Fake 'Articles'
It seems to be getting worse
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, February 04, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, February 04, 2025
'Official' Debian Sites That Sell Proprietary and Surveillance
"Azure API throttling strikes back"
statCounter: Only 1 in ~40 Web Users in Ireland Uses Microsoft Browser, One in Six Uses Windows
When/if Windows market share goes down, so will Edge
Links 04/02/2025: Social Control Media Bans and US Fighting Its Allies, Not Russia
Links for the day
Links 04/02/2025: Birth of a Calf, FOSDEM, and More
Links for the day
Anti-Linux FUD Sites cybersecuritynews.com and gbhackers.com Turn Out to be LLM Slop, Even Plagiarism That Spreads Lies
Beware false headlines and fake text from cybersecuritynews.com and gbhackers.com
BetaNews Began Removing LLM Slop About "Linux", But More of It Keeps Coming From Guardian Digital, Inc (at linuxsecurity.com)
the other Serial Slopper, Guardian Digital, Inc
Mollamby, Suicide Cluster, not trademark, the real reasons for Debian legal expenses, evidence
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 04/02/2025: Mass Layoffs at Salesforce, Economic Pressures, Trade Wars
Links for the day
The Latest Microsoft Layoffs Are a Wake-up Call: The Company is Running Low on Money
in most areas it is not even profitable
[Video] Richard Stallman Auctioning a GNU (Gnu) at Surathkal, India
clip is only a minute-long
Software Freedom Month at NITK Surathkal and Yesterday's Talk by Richard Stallman
the message being spread by the person who started it all
Richard Stallman Has Another Talk in India Tomorrow, at Least Fourth India Talk in Recent Days
In the past month he has given at least half a dozen talks
statCounter: GNU/Linux and ChromeOS Now Measured at 2.78% in Japan (It Used to be Less Than 0.5%)
really 'took off' half a decade ago
GNU/Linux Reaches All-Time High in the United States, Based on statCounter
Windows is the loser; GNU/Linux grows at its expense
LLM Hype (Chatbots Hyped and Wrongly Characterised as "Artificial Intelligence") Cause Net Inflation
Net as in Internet, not limited to the Web
It Looks Like BetaNews' Managing Editor Wayne Williams is Taking Over From Fagioli After Repeat Pattern of LLM Slop (State-of-the-Art Plagiarism) About "Linux"
The most plausible explanation is, Fagioli got caught or his conduct could no longer be ignored
statCounter Reckons Less Than 10% in Mexico Still Use Windows to Access to Web and GNU/Linux Surges to All-Time High (Plus, Microsoft's Latest Debt Crisis)
Looking at Mexico in isolation
From India to Italy: Richard Stallman's Next Talk is Next Week in Torino
Announced less than a day ago
Corporate Media is Intentionally Lying for Microsoft, There's Now a Hiring Freeze, No Replacements for Workers Laid Off in Two Mass Layoffs Last Month
Maybe the media - at least some of it - actually deserves doom. If it covers up for the powerful to muzzle and gaslight the oppressed, then what sort of media is that anyway?
Gemini Links 04/02/2025: Tolkien and New Job
Links for the day
Covering EPO Scandals in an Age of Mass Censorship (and Europe Being Afraid to Introspect, for It Might "Help Putin")
It was all along expected that "external enemies" would be invoked to suppress discussion about EPO crimes
Facebook Finally Admits That It Censored Linux and Banned People for Mentioning It; statCounter Shows Rapid Growth for GNU/Linux in Southeast Asia
So GAFAM is losing its power
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, February 03, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, February 03, 2025