Open Source: Locked Into Uncertainty
,----[ Quote ]
| What I do find a little interesting is that Illinois officials would go out
| of their way to help Microsoft create an anti-open source propaganda video.
`----
http://www.windley.com/archives/2007/08/open_source_locked_into_uncertainty.shtml
Of course, Microsoft's servers are so secure that even their seller gets its
site cracked. From the news:
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-UK-Events-Website-Hacked.html
Related:
Politicians in Microsoft's Pocket
,----[ Quote ]
| Continuing on the theme of which politicians are receiving money from
| who. Here is a list of candidates who took money from MSFT.
`----
http://www.fonz.net/blog/archives/2007/06/04/politicians-in-microsofts-pocket/
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
“There’s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper’s magazine
about panels, audits, and experts. It is called CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from
evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class action suit in Iowa. Here’s a
paragraph from a document admitted into evidence, called “Generalized
Evangelism Timeline,” about guerrilla or evangelical marketing:
Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology
is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’ reports should be
issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring
them). “Independent consultants should write articles, give conference
presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as
experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour. “Independent”
academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).
They advise cultivating “experts” early and recommending that they not publish
anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as “independent” later on,
when they’re needed. This type of evangelical or guerilla marketing is
apparently quite common in the high-tech fields, and seems to be used
liberally by open source developers.
The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a panel is
being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find “pliable”
moderators–those who will sell out.
It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
countless “hearings,” in which hundreds of citizens would testify before a
panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry “experts.” When a
panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. As with
elections, they don’t leave anything to chance.”
(a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 “Evangelism is War” from
Comes v. Microsoft).
,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
| "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I don't like the
| fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server."
|
| [...]
|
| "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
| don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't like
| competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't mention
| that we sponsored it."
`----
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
|
|
