MANY articles nowadays describe Microsoft's takeover of GitHub as a "success story" for "Open Source"; but what kind of success is it when a proprietary software giant that passes private data (soon private repositories) to the NSA hijacks the competition?
"Many "LF" events are being funded by Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft playing a key role (e.g. keynote speeches)."At the end of last year I decided that I wish to return to GNU/Linux coverage (not just in social control media); threats have evolved and we're hardly covering them, having focused on software patents for half a decade, almost exclusively. Free software has meanwhile become very mainstream and even an industry standard. This is why Microsoft is pretending (while all of its biggest products are still proprietary).
Readers have urged us not to shy away from 'politics' and criticism of companies/organisations that would naturally seem like allies. Take the Linux Foundation for instance. Many "LF" events are being funded by Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft playing a key role (e.g. keynote speeches). The Linux Foundation even promotes Microsoft courses now. It shouldn't seem so outrageous to Jim Zemlin, who himself isn't using GNU/Linux, he just uses the "Linux" brand to make a massive annual salary for himself (over half a million dollars per year, tax exempted because of the pretense of "charity"). Red Hat is also disappointing. Microsoft staff is actively participating in the operations of Red Hat (we remark on this in our daily links sometimes), as it does inside the Linux Foundation. This is entryism like the strategy that doomed Nokia. ⬆
"I’ve killed at least two Mac conferences. [...] by injecting Microsoft content into the conference, the conference got shut down. The guy who ran it said, why am I doing this?"