10.22.11
Microsoft is Still Fighting Hard Against GNU/Linux, Resorting to Dirty Tricks
Summary: A couple of new examples of Microsoft breaking rules to break Linux or break apart Linux contracts
Antitrust complaints have already been filed against Microsoft in response to blocking of Linux through UEFI [1, 2, 3, 4], so ZDNet’s Microsoft’s bloggers start disinformation campaigns (two of them so far). It is like a coverup attempt.
Over in Tamil-Nadu [1, 2, 3] there are some interesting developments going on and Glyn Moody, having read an article we helped research, compared this to Newham's Microsoft fiasco. Another thing he said in his blog post about Microsoft’s response to GNU/Linux adoption:
This looks like an important win for free software – not least because it could give impetus to similar plans elsewhere in Latin America. No surprise, then, that the FUD had already started appearing even before this decision was made public – for example this article on the “risks” of free software – which calls for “technology neutrality” and “interoperable standards”.
But isn’t it interesting that the same groups never called for such “neutrality” and “interoperability” between open source and closed source when it was the former that was completely locked out by biased procurement specifications? Strange that….
We wrote about this deception before. Lobbyists of Microsoft use this semantic trick a lot. It is important to be familiar with the common FUD tactics. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Michael said,
October 22, 2011 at 10:43 pm
FUD:
—–
Antitrust complaints have already been filed against Microsoft in response to blocking of Linux through UEFI [1, 2, 3, 4], so ZDNet’s Microsoft’s bloggers start disinformation campaigns (two of them so far). It is like a coverup attempt.
—–
Roy has 4 links.
To his own pages.
None of them speak of any current antitrust complaints filed against Microsoft.
saulgoode Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 am
The provided links are not necessarily provided as annotation to the fact that antitrust complaints have been filed — but perhaps merely to previous Techrights coverage of “blocking of Linux through UEFI”, or even just “UEFI”.
The expectation that every hyperlink offered on a web page has to address the entirety of the topic of discussion or offer substantial proof of an argument is misguided. If a blog states that “Neil Armstrong is an avid reader of Vogon poetry”, a reader should not complain that the hyperlink provided fails to substantiate the statement.
Complaining that Techrights articles contain lots of links to other Techrights articles is as nonsensical as would be complaining about Wikipedia articles containing links to other Wikipedia articles.
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 am
Your link does not even have the word “antitrust” either.
Is there any evidence to back Roy’s claim?
saulgoode Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:14 am
The complaint was registered based upon concerns regarding Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act. If you examine that law, Part IV does indeed cover “antitrust”, and it is hard to see how any of the other Parts should apply. It is possible the complaint filed covered other aspects of the Act; feel free to investigate and present what you find. The facts as presented by the article give all appearance to being accurate; at least one complaint has been filed, and it references a law covering antitrust.
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 am
I am not interested in digging to try to support what Roy cannot.
The point is not that Roy is necessarily wrong – the point is he does not support his points.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
@saulgoode you are feeding a known troll. To quote Microsoft Bott, “Why won’t Microsoft tell PC manufacturers how to implement secure boot on their computer designs? Because anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. Literally.” (from blog post “With Windows 8, Microsoft can’t forget past antitrust issues”)
Also see
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/733030
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:28 am
Roy: I note how you are not supporting your claims, and your reaction is simply to call me names. You then point to a link which speaks of “pending introduction of criminal sanctions” but does not even mention if any official antitrust complaints have been filed.
saulgoode Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
No. You asserted that the claim was “FUD” — regardless whether or not supporting evidence was provided. If I claim the Earth is round and you respond that my claim is “FUD” because I did not reference my sources, this represents an utter failure of logical thinking on your part.
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Claiming the earth is round is not an attack against someone.
Roy repeatedly posts claims he fails to support to push his fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Bottom line: Roy spewed accusations he failed to support… you cannot support them either but you will give him a free pass because your think his BS is not properly labeled as “FUD”.
What a pathetic defense of his lack of support.
saulgoode said,
October 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Nor is pointing out that anti-trust complaints have been filed against Microsoft in response to their UEFI proposal. That is what you claimed was FUD — and yet you provided nothing to substantiate your claim, while the fact is complaints have been filed.
I provided a link to an article which asserted that complaints have been filed with the Australian government. If you have reason to doubt the veracity of that article, why not address your response there? Or at least present some reasoning to support your contention that the claim is false?
And yet you’ve provided nothing toward discounting the claim. Where is the substantiation for your view? If you’re “not interested in digging” to find out whether a claim made is true or false then what justification can there be for accusing the claim of being unfounded? Do you feel it reasonable to charge people with spreading “BS” when you admit that you’re not interested in discovering the truth?
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
What antitrust complaints have been filed against MS in response to their UEFI proposal? What is the complaint and where can I read it?
And if you can produce such, fine… the point was Roy did not.
wiwiwiw
Michael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Whoops… sincere apologies about the added wiwiwiwiw and question mark. Pasted the wrong thing.
saulgoode Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 5:00 am
The first sentence on the page to which I linked in my first response:
The Zdnet article (therein linked) provides this response as being from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:
If you do not consider “exclusive dealing” to qualify as an “antitrust” concern, I would direct you to what the United States Federal Trade Commission has to say on the matter.
Are you disputing the facts as presented on those websites? Are you disputing that exclusive dealing qualifies as an “antitrust” concern?
Even so, you have presented a non sequitur argument that since this article did not provide links that address the actual filing of complaints, no complaints have been filed. Your logic is flawed. Complaints have been filed and this article’s report of that fact is accurate.
Michael Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Fair enough. All I ask for is support.
Now why couldn’t Roy offer any.
Sincerely, thank you.