Comments

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-23 06:02:58

  If you look at how many followers on Twitter I have after a few months, only about 60 blog postings and a few hundred tweets and compare to how many you have after several years, 11,000+ blog postings and 20,000+ tweets, you can see (even if adding your few hundred identi.ca followers) that reasonableness works better on Twitter than the kinds of tweets like your "LOL" thing I just saw.
  
  The thing about using Linux for 1 day is one of many examples of baseless claims you sometimes make. My first MySQL installation was on Linux and that was the one I used to familiarize myself (with the help of a few good books) with MySQL and PHP.
  
  I never said Linux needs to be saved from IBM. But some free and open source software needs to be defended against IBM, and some of that defensive effort indirectly also benefits Linux.
  
  I won't reply to you on Twitter anymore, but still you should in your own best interest be at least somewhat reasonable with what you claim.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-23 06:17:33

  Which GNU/Linux distros have you used on the desktop?

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-23 06:25:39

  That *was* on the desktop; it wasn't an Internet-connected server with which I learned about PHP and MySQL. The distro was SUSE Linux (at the time I think it was spelled SuSE, not SUSE), which was the distro my online gaming startup also used in the late 1990's.
  
  I use lots of FOSS and to me it isn't all about the operating system.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-23 06:41:40

  You used SUSE for programming purpose (many people do that). Why not casual use for other things? Did you like SUSE just for its power?
  
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

• twitter

  2010-08-23 13:05:25

  Microsoft works hard to make fauxpen source look popular and reasonable. At the end of the day, Florian, you are still a Windows 7 user. You use that because you have not figured out how to do things with free software or you work with unfriendly organizations like Microsoft that constantly demand use of new, exclusive garbage. There are many words for people who let themselves get jerked around like that and advocate the same for others. Microsoft's published words for these people are "pawns" and "one night stand". When the person actually understands the concepts of software freedom and once advocated these as human rights, the word RMS has used is "traitor". Most of the more clever fauxpen source people are traitors but all of them are Microsoft tools. When they are Windows users, they show that they value Microsoft association above freedom, privacy, reliability or performance. Microsoft is desperate to show that their obsolete software has a place in the world by subverting the "Open Source" brand. The lame and the treacherous help them do it.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 04:31:41

  "Quit with the s*** Florian. Everybody knows you are Microsoft astroturfer whose task it to create rifts and divisions in FLOSS world."
  
  http://www.itworld.com/comments/117730
  
  Any comment on that, Florian? I told you, as long as you refuse to deny that Microsoft pays you people will view you as a Microsoft drone.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-22 12:11:07

  I saw that one and answered right on ITWorld.com. It's strange to be called an astroturfer by an 'Anonymous', isn't it?
  
  I won't depart from my policy to comment on those things in a generic, timeless way only. As you can see, I still have nothing to announce. Whenever I have, regardless of which company it involves, you'll know.
  
  I'm not conerned about people making claims that lack even the slightest factual basis. What I'm interested in is discussing the issues. The 'Anonymous' you quoted contributed nothing in that regard. He didn't disprove anything I said, so why should I worry?

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 12:18:52

  I won't depart from my policy to comment on those things in a generic, timeless way only. As you can see, I still have nothing to announce. Whenever I have, regardless of which company it involves, you'll know.

  
  
  Your phrasing is highly suspicious not just to me. Until you deny a relationship with Microsoft, people will continue to assume what seems most reasonable.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-22 12:25:20

  I've already seen two different websites linking you to Microsoft.
  
  Also, you quote an 'Anonymous' with his four-letter word kind of comment on ITWorld. I don't think that's a valid reason for me to answer such questions.
  
  By the way, you probably know under which hashtag you go on Twitter for some of your critics. One of them is a highly competent FOSS project leader and in a very recent tweet called you "crazy". So it's time for you to release any medical records? Or can we agree that people say lots of things on the Internet and focus again on facts and issues?

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 13:18:23

  Go cite Microsoft MVPs. Yeah, that would really support you.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-22 16:13:29

  In my understanding, the MVP title is just granted as a recognition of technical competence related to Microsoft's platform. The person I mean would almost certainly qualify for any GNU/Linux-related MVP-like honor as well. He appears to know both platforms extremely well.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 17:13:09

  Sounds like TurboHercules then. Staged.

• twitter

  2010-08-22 18:03:36

  MVP is a title Microsoft bestows on their Most Valuable Pawns. Because Microsoft refuses to grant anyone equal standing on their platform, there can be no real technical experts, only monkeys who are better at doing what they are told. It is important to remember this when people try to substitute "choice" for software freedom. In the non free software world, all you can do is what you are allowed to do and the owners can revoke everything at any time. The choices are as false as the honors and promises of wealth. Only hard work for the benefit of others is sure.
  
  Perhaps, Florian, you too will earn the MVP title but these personal discussion are a distraction. The newly revealed Microsoft fail is more interesting and the truth is coming out.
  
  Here are a few recent articles. "To err is human, to kill is Microsoft, correctly blames Microsoft but might not have all of the facts right. Wikipedia has an interesting discussion, which states that the copilot "repeats the flaps and slats correct values without actually checking them." With rampant malware on board, how can we know that the cockpit indicators showed the correct values? Microsoft seems to have scrubbed Wikipedia of Windows mention. I'm looking forward to more information coming out.
  
  All sorts of Microsoft friendly sites have articles spinning this, SeattlePI, Windows7 Heads, MSNBC, The Register ... Here is a late article clearly implicating Windows but acting as if all software has the same problems. Here's a Google bomb, the same BS article in two places Windows 7 heads and Secuirtythreat.info. With spin and smoke this furious, there is surely a fire.
  
  Spanair seems to be a major Microsoft victim. They use IIS for web service and there are many reports of the site being flaky. They also used .NET for ticketing. It's almost as depressing when these things are used for non critical, customer facing systems.
  
  The relationship between Microsoft and McDonald Douglas is not easily discovered by Google. Search results are polluted by links about Microsoft's flight simulator software. Never the less, we can find Microsoft inserting itself into XOpen and ruining a company called MDIS. In 1993 MD swapped out MDIS management and in 1995 MDIS replaced Unix with Windows. MDIS fired two thirds of it's staff and changed it's name to Northgate Information Solutions after losing lots of money, which is only to be expected from Windows use.

• twitter

  2010-08-22 03:41:47

  Nice spin, Florian, you should be ashamed of yourself. When the fact that Windows has caused yet another disaster you and the Microsoft booster at ZDNet manage to blame IBM or "policy." Anywhere people use Windows, the usual weaknesses of Windows bring ruin and no amount of patching or AV voodoo will help. People who shift the blame from the central problem are responsible for the next loss of life and livelyhood.
  
  How many failures like this do you have to see? Windows helped cause the largest blackout in US history and Deepwater Horizon, both of which lead to considerable loss of life and livelyhood.
  
  The only reason people still consider Windows for critical operations is because boosters work hard to cover up the problems. Vendors were sold on the cheapness of the toy OS ten years ago and are kept there with arguments of switching costs. Both of these arguments were a lie. Microsoft sucked as much or more out of companies than mainframe makers ever did and the cost of moving away from monopoly software is going to be a long term winner. Non free software sucks no matter who's providing it, but Microsoft has a special place for providing some of the lowest quality software ever seen. Continued use of Windows is negligence.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:16:15

  One more thing: James Gosling, the father of Java, says that Microsoft now has the moral high ground in the industry, and that contradicts your whole bogeyman theory in a more aggressive way than anything I've ever said. I wonder why you don't link him to Microsoft on the basis of such a statement. Any particular reason?

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:23:42

  Got link? The phrasing matters and the context is crucial.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:25:47

  He's quoted by TheRegister at the very end of this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/16/google_oracle_android_lawsuit/ "It's a sad comment on the morality of large modern software companies that Microsoft, while I don't think they've gotten any better since Sun sued them, probably has the high ground."

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:27:27

  And I found the original thing on his blog: http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/quite_the_firestorm The sentence I quoted is a separate bullet point there.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:41:05

  When put in context, Gosling hardly defends them at all.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:48:21

  It's not about defending, it's about the question of whether it makes sense to be afraid primarily of them or whether it makes more sense to also look in detail at the other large players in the industry. I don't see a reason why Google, IBM, Apple or Oracle should get much less attention than Microsoft, and just the four of them collectively deserve about three times as much attention as Microsoft in my estimate as a long-term average and there are period such as the current one where it's even much more.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:51:26

  I never focused only on Microsoft. I look at threats to software freedom; Microsoft is just by far the greatest, for obvious reasons (most to lose).

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:57:27

  Your "most to lose" theory appears to be based on the assumption that FOSS provides operating systems and office software and therefore competes with them, plus maybe that you consider the operating system strategically very important.
  
  But it's a reality out in the market that a lot of nonfree software runs on top of GNU/Linux and a lot of FOSS on top of Windows. That's why the operating system isn't the all-decisive battlefield in my view.
  
  When it comes to competitive challenges from FOSS, any one of the large players will consider a variety of options to respond. Looking at what IBM, Apple and Oracle actually do, it's really hard to see Microsoft as the primary threat at this stage. Even in terms of quotes about FOSS, stuff like what you quoted from Larry E. hasn't been said by Microsoft officials in quite a long time.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:08:52

  You conveniently forget that Microsoft has only 2 major cash cows where it's all about margins. Free software commoditises there.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:13:33

  "only 2 major cash cows" => that's actually twice as much as most companies.
  
  Google only makes serious money through online advertising tied to search.
  
  Apple's Mac business now benefits from its handheld products, but it's basically a mobile consumer electronics company.
  
  IBM generates more than 40% of its profits from the mainframe hardware, software and services business, plus a large part of the other profits is due to "upselling" of Power 7 and x86 hardware to mainframe customers.
  
  Oracle's cash cow is its database business. They also monetize quite aggressively the things they acquire but typically by giving profitability increases a priority over R&D investment.
  
  SAP only has one cash cow, too.
  
  All of the players I just mentioned -- except Google because it's a server-based operation -- have a problem with FOSS and possible commoditization. Hercules is a perfect example of a commodotization threat to IBM's mainframe business; Android to Apple; MySQL was to Oracle (the European Commission's decision mentioned that the German stock exchange had already decided to switch to MySQL for its core operations).

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:18:15

  This is not true. Oracle acquired many more enterprise players and unlike Microsoft, it does burn cash almost everywhere but the cash cows. The same can be said about IBM, Apple, and to a certain extent Google (which leverages some parts of the business to boost another).
  
  The level of the stack matters too. If you lose control of the platform, then all those above will suffer. Oracle, IBM, Apple and Google use UNIX/Linux.

• gnufreex

  2010-08-22 17:56:28

  Please, don't pervert Gosling's words to help your Microsoftie agenda.
  
  http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/ " # It's a sad comment on the morality of large modern software companies that Microsoft, while I don't think they've gotten any better since Sun sued them, probably has the high ground. " For the reading impaired, Gosling meant that Microsoft didn't chaged for the better. Instead, industry changed for the worse, when they saw that crime paid off for Microsoft. And that is another reason why Microsoft must be destroyed.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 18:01:46

  That's why I requested context. Florian's "appeal to authority" trick goes way back (he also uses selective Stallman quotes for Microsoft apology).

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:26:24

  I must admit I don't understand your "This is not true" paragraph in terms of what's different about the non-core operations of those companies from those of Microsoft.
  
  In Microsoft's case, SQL Server is also quite profitable, and while it is available for only one platform, it could always be ported if Microsoft so elected.
  
  Then concerning the use of Linux by those other companies: Oracle, as you know, looks at FOSS only as something to exploit. Apple, too. Google is a more complex issue, but certainly its search business isn't open. Dana Blankenhorn raised the good question of whether Google should turn its search index into an "open standard".
  
  And about IBM, its mainframe cash cow isn't about Linux. They offer z/Linux as a complementary thing and the related hardware is, for the same level of performance and functionality, only about one tenth as expensive as for the execution of legacy workloads: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-faces-of-mainframe-different.html
  
  So it's quite obvious that it's not z/Linux where they make the money.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:34:56

  Workloads can still be moved/migrated to other platforms. Show me stories of disgruntled customers. Let's see the nature of complaints.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:41:08

  Migration of such huge and mission-critical programs isn't easy. We're not talking about migrating an iPhone app to Android. We're talking about roughly 250 billion lines of legacy source code still in use; plus programs for which companies don't even have source code anymore; and if any single component can't be migrated, the mainframe can't be switched off. I read a story of the Marin County administration in California that got some things migrated (and a county administration is a rather small-scale mainframe user) but then they couldn't solve the problem for the county court system, and remained locked in.
  
  In terms of customers, this is now definitely going to be a key priority for the European Commission as part of its two parallel probes. Considering that the Commission launched one of the two probes at its own initiative, I suspect they have already talked to a number of customers and therefore became aware of that problem.
  
  In that kind of business, customers will rarely complain in public. But it does happen. Here's a German-language Computerwoche (German equivalent of Infoworld) article that reports on a user group conference: http://www.computerwoche.de/hardware/data-center-server/1935510/

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:47:06

  Hm I had already posted a reply here, but I can't see it now, while a reply I wrote subsequently is already visible online.
  
  I explained some of the impediments to migration, the Marin County example in California, and I provided a link to a German-language article in which a user group complains about high mainframe software costs: http://www.computerwoche.de/hardware/data-center-server/1935510/ Public complaints like that are rare; the European Commission will certainly talk to customers directly and get much more information than what can be found in the press.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 19:00:15

  OK, so were these customers forced to buy from IBM like people are forced to get Windows with a new PC?

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:08:52

  Not directly related to this article, but to the Microsoft discussion: you often report on ex-Microsoft people being recruited by other companies and put that into the context of conspiracy theories, sometimes overtly, sometimes between the lines.
  
  I think such conspiracy theories are generally unconvincing. If people take a new job, they then fight for the interests of their new employer.
  
  David Beckham, Ruud van Nistelrooy and CR7 didn't give ManUtd any influence, let alone control, over Real Madrid. Not even in terms of tactics or style.
  
  If you want to look for a company that really has a lot of ex-Microsoft people in many important positions, you might want to take a look at Google. This also includes Patricia Moll, an EU lobbyist. Same thing there: they now play on Google's team.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:12:52

  David Beckham, Ruud van Nistelrooy and CR7 didn’t give ManUtd any influence, let alone control, over Real Madrid. Not even in terms of tactics or style.

  
  
  Very improper analogy. Notice the drawn correlations that I made; when an ex-Softie enters a hardware/Web company s/he's likely to drive for Windows (software side) adoption cause that's what s/he knows. Share-holding and former colleagues may play a role too.
  
  

  If you want to look for a company that really has a lot of ex-Microsoft people in many important positions, you might want to take a look at Google. This also includes Patricia Moll, an EU lobbyist. Same thing there: they now play on Google’s team.

  
  
  I pointed this out before.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:15:13

  If they know Windows, that's one thing, but they'll still have to succeed with their internal selling job. Execs have to convince the CEO, the CEO has to convince the BoD.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:20:27

  Microsoft has had many former executives/partners appointed as CEOs recently (VMware, Juniper, Parallels, Yahoo! et cetera).

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:31:31

  It's a huge company with a long tradition, so it's normal that people work their at some point. In the German IT industry, at least in significant segments such as book and computer magazine publishing, Markt&Technik (which now belongs to Pearson) was a similar phenomenon. There was this saying of "M&T is not where you work, it's where you come from." I wrote computer books and articles for them as well a long time ago. So in a way, "alumni" of such organizations stay in contact, but again, if you talk about executives and particularly CEOs, those wouldn't get anywhere if they didn't have an unconditional to whoever is their employer at the *relevant* time. Allegiance to former employers is probably one of the best ways to fail.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:36:47

  Not if those companies are existing allies/partners of the said "former" employer.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 18:44:33

  What you just said would make sense only if it's an extremely far-reaching, more or less exclusive alliance.
  
  VMware, Juniper, Parallels, Yahoo are companies that have many allies in many areas. As you know, Yahoo decided to partner with Google in Japan, which raises antitrust questions. All of those companies are cross-platform and not Windows-centric in any way.
  
  "Coopetition", simply. Even IBM and Microsoft have areas where they partner, such as the Open Cloud API.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 18:52:42

  As you know, Yahoo decided to partner with Google in Japan

  
  
  Yahoo! originally decided to partner with Google *everywhere*; then, Microsoft & its vulture Icahn took Yang down and hired AstroTurfers (LMG for example).
  
  Since you mentioned Patricia Moll, who do *you* work for at the moment? Please stop quoting "transparency rules" and just provide a simple answer. You have a proven history of being *hired* to 'campaign' as you call it.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:10:02

  I'm guilty as charged because I've been using Microsoft programs all the time since 1983. The Commodore 64's firmware (delivered on read-only memory) contained Microsoft BASIC and an Easter egg reportedly programmed by Bill Gates himself: http://weilsite.blogspot.com/2009/05/bill-gates-commodore-64-easter-egg-and.html
  
  However, I've also been using free and open source software for a long time (since 1996). An online gaming startup I cofounded then was among the first startups in Europe to use only free software (GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL etc.) plus its own internally developed software on the server side. And my involvement with MySQL AB, starting in 2001 (the year the company was founded), is also a fact.
  
  Concerning the ZDNet article, I'm disappointed that you elected not to quote the actual ZDNet article. That article twice says "mainframe": http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/trojan-may-have-contributed-to-fatal-spanair-crash-10018323/ "The newspaper El Pais reported on Friday that Spanair's mainframe was contaminated with Trojans [...]" "The mainframe was supposed to raise the alarm [...]"
  
  I looked up the original Spanish article and noted that it doesn't say mainframe, although "ordenador central" in connection with an airline is in almost all cases a mainframe, so ZDNet's wording wasn't implausible at all. A native Spanish speaker commented on reddit as well, by the way. At any rate, I made it clear that I relied on ZDNet, which is a fairly reputable network of IT websites, and ZDNet must verify that it is a "mainframe" if it says so.
  
  If you believe ZDNet is wrong, I suggest you contact David Meyer, the author of ZDNet UK's article, and should they have to admit to a misrepresentation, I'll tweet that fact immediately. In the meantime, if you want to blame anyone, blame them, not me.
  
  Concerning World War II, you had talked about "equally evil" in connection with IBM and Microsoft, whereas your position was that IBM is much less "evil" than Microsoft. The use of the word "evil" in connection with companies (as opposed to individual actions/decisions of companies) is not my style. However, since you wanted to have an argument over that kind of moral question, I pointed to this web page: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php On that basis I argued that it's utterly unfair to Microsoft to say they're "equally evil" as IBM. Nevertheless I recognized that Microsoft is also a significantly younger company. Even your 6,500 postings bashing Microsoft on this website don't collectively come even remotely close to what that web page says about IBM and what it did only to defend a quasi-monopoly.
  
  Finally, I very much appreciate your link to the LWN (LinuxWeeklyNews) discussion. Those who want to read the entire discussion (well over 200 postings I believe) can go here: http://lwn.net/Articles/399840/ But I have no problem with the part where I have an argument with, inter alia, André Rebentisch. I stand by the things I said, including the things about certain "Groklies" that had to be debunked because of people bringing them up, some of them aggressively, others just because they had been misled.
  
  The discussion on LWN has been very constructive and productive. You can see that some people who are absolutely impartial about IBM vs. TurboHercules appreciated the opportunity to learn a lot about the issue and its different aspects and ramifications.
  
  You mentioned Thomas Vinje and you can see on LWN that I hold his abilities in the highest regard, but that doesn't give him a monopoly on the truth and André Rebentisch's claim that the European Commission believes everything Vinje says is so absurd that he actually hurts his own credibility and his cause by even making such a claim.
  
  You can say whatever you want in terms of linking me to your bogeyman without forcing me to answer a question the way you want when I have a timeless, generic answer: if I have anything like that to announce, I will, and that's what EU transparency rules are for.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:23:11

  ZDNet is not a reputable source. It has contained many gross inaccuracies. Bad translations would not surprise me.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:24:15

  Which IT news website(s) would you consider more reputable than ZDNet? Apart from your own, which is however a minority opinion ;-)

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:39:20

  Reuters has had a good track record in recent years.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:46:13

  However good it may be, Reuters doesn't cover IT news in as much detail as the likes of ZDNet/CNET, IDG, Heise/H Online. You don't limit your reporting to Reuters as the only source either.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:48:27

  The H is OK. Reuters is very pedantic (updates and corrections).

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-21 17:53:39

  News agencies do many updates. Reuters isn't the only one to do so. Same with Bloomberg, Dow Jones, AP, AFP, etc.
  
  I like The H too, but it also produces far fewer stories than the vast ZDNet/CNET network, for an example. So there are simply things that happen and related to which one needs more than just Reuters and The H. I don't see any particular reason to distrust ZDNet in general. Everyone can make mistakes, including Reuters and The H, not only ZDNet.
  
  I still recommend that if you have a problem with ZDNet's mainframe plane crash story, you complain to ZDNet, not me.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-21 17:56:27

  ZDNet used to be decent, but just like CNET it started to be run by bloggers under time constraints. They are owned by CBS now.
  
  CNET and ZDNet both contribute to a lot of sensationalist noise in news feeds these days.

• gnufreex

  2010-08-22 17:39:41

  Zdnet is doing anything to attract comments, including trolling. But if any publicity is good publicity for some person, then is understandable why that person like those kind of sites. And that explains why that person trolls in comments all over the Internet, trying to make somebody care about what he has to say.
  
  Oh, one more thing. I know why Floyd hates Eben Moglen. Eben worked for IBM in his young days. IBM is evil!! It is conspir~1 !!1111oneleven

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 18:03:03

  I think he belittles Eben because is pro-GPL and against RAND. Florian is the opposite.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 18:04:06

  /is pro-GPL/Eben is pro-GPL/

• twitter

  2010-08-22 21:10:57

  Good news comes from trusted bloggers these days. All tech journals not under Microsoft's direct control are constantly "subverted" according to Microsoft internal documents. I'm unaware of any that has weathered the storm well, not even Slashdot. Despite your smearing Roy as "crazy" and "minority" his news feed is one of the best available. Groklaw, Debian, KDE and the FSF all have good news feeds too. Tech journals can be counted on to pick up company announcements and a few will have interesting technical reviews but really, the PR driven, embargoed news business is archaic and broken.
  
  But this is so much spin and distraction from Florian, the Microsoft representative. It would be nice if comments here were used to present news from Spanair instead of libel against Roy.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-22 21:28:18

  See the comments here. Also, as an example I gave earlier tonight in IRC, here is some bad journalism (from Microsoft Nick of course):
  
  "Microsoft's Kin Smartphones Could Eclipse Windows Phone 7" --Microsoft Nick
  
  http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Microsofts-Kin-Smartphones-Could-Eclipse-Windows-Phone-7-560177/
  
  This is journalism?
  
  http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/journalistic-parrots-for-slert/ http://techrights.org/2008/11/29/journalism-is-junk/

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-22 17:23:57

  Concerning your tweet, the "Floyd" thing was just a confusion by Dana Blankenhorn, who stopped using that name months ago when he understood he had seen someone else's website and drawn a wrong conclusion.
  
  About TurboHercules and "staged", you linked to the LWN discussion and I encourage everyone interested in this to read it because that claim (by someone who's certainly not a reliable, let alone competent source) was then debunked by me thoroughly. The guy who made that claim had to admit that the 11-year-old Hercules open source project isn't staged, and that IBM's letters aren't staged.

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-22 17:36:38

  Another thing about the tweet is that I didn't "smear" any of the persons or entities you listed.
  
  I raise concerns and objections related to particular issues.
  
  In OIN's case it's a structural concern, but I made four alternative constructive suggestions for how to address its #1 problem (the very problem that affects Google now).
  
  As far as Miguel de Icaza is concerned, I don't interpret a factual remark about what an MVP title is like as an "alignment".

• Florian Mueller

  2010-08-23 06:26:18

  I just noted on your latest posting ( http://techrights.org/2010/08/23/microsoft-reaches-new-minimum/ ) that you apparently do quote ZDNet but blame me for doing so...

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-08-25 14:05:48

  Usually I link to it for lack of other sources that I really trust and respect (The H, Moody, Groklaw, Updegrove, EFF and others). It's hard to find particular information and apply reading source filters at the same time. This intersection yields almost nothing.