-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Sunday 03 August 2008 22:20 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>>> You're a fool if you don't believe that certain people,
>>> organizations and companies have a vested, financial interest in
>>> Linux.....
>
> Roy aggregates news pertinent to hundreds of different organisations and
> companies, many of whom compete with each other either directly or
> indirectly. How can that be "astroturfing"? It's a very strange sort of
> "astroturfing" indeed, that advocates more than one side of a competing
> market, especially when the core product that facilitates that market is
> free (and Free), and therefore presents an unbiased and uninhibited
> entry point to that market that anyone, including Microsoft, can benefit
> from.
>
> So please explain again how that is "astroturfing"?
>
> Idiot.
>
>> And you're a fool if you think that said organisations don't have
>> interests in just about anything. However, Linux is free, and will
>> remain free. These guys can have whatever interests they like; it
>> doesn't prevent anybody else doing anything they like with the Linux
>> platform. Compare and contrast with the redmond outfit.
>
> Yes, in total contrast to the level playing field and low entry barrier
> of Free Software in a Free Market capitalist economy, the gangsters at
> Microsoft prefer racketeering in the form of an anti-capitalist monopoly
> that excludes all competition. This is Microsoft's /only/ goal, and
> therefore anyone who supports them in this endeavour is equally corrupt,
> and is essentially advertising the commercial products of a racketeer.
>
> It's my contention that the only possible motivation one could have for
> supporting such behaviour, is if one had a vested interest in Microsoft
> to the exclusion of all else, and the only way that would make any
> sense at all would be if one was actually employed by them, or in some
> other way remunerated for efforts to assist them in that nefarious goal.
> Since nearly all of the trolls in this group clearly share that agenda,
> and yet few if any of them have disclosed any such conflicts of
> interests, then they are essentially shills who are astroturfing for
> that crime organisation.
>
> OTOH if one advocates Free Software, and that Free Software benefits as
> a result of that advocacy, then it isn't just one company that benefits,
> since there is no single "Free Software Inc.", but in fact tens of
> thousands of companies, and millions of people, who benefit from that
> Free Software, and indeed potentially /everyone/ can benefit without
> cost or any form of imposition, since it is both Free and free.
> Therefore by definition, advocating Free Software cannot possibly be
> astroturfing; advocating Microsoft's products without disclosing vested
> interests /is/ astroturfing; and advocating Microsoft's products in COLA
> under /any/ circumstances is spamming.
>
> I'm sure it would be very convenient for Microsoft and their shills if
> there was a single "Free Software Inc." that they could slander and
> attack financially, but the fact is there isn't and never will be, so
> the best these thugs can do is use FUD against the ideology of Freedom
> itself, describing it as "cancerous", whilst employing every other
> devious and malicious device at their disposal to sabotage Free Software
> ... one project at a time, using abominations such as software patents;
> fake grass-roots supporters as shills; shell companies as weapons for
> litigation; clandestine deals with OEM vendors to exclude the
> competition; bribery and sabotage to undermine existing contracts and
> new ventures that utilise Free Software; slander and yet more bribery to
> undermine Open Standards for their own exclusive benefit; and any other
> form of criminal activity to ensure their dominance, including the
> seeming obvious likelihood that they employ astroturfers to sabotage
> COLA, in direct violation of recent European law:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1361968.ece
It's amusing that SCO (and its ilk) tried to accuse PJ of being imaginary,
funded by OSDL, or funded by IBM when she can in fact barely make ends meet.
It's libelous and disgusting.
It's most amusing that the Munchkins attack me here and elsewhere with false
allegations about me being paid. It's funniest when they say Shuttleworth pays
me because my relationship with him is quite poor. I'm probably closest, in
terms of views, to the FSF. What motivates these people if not the knowledge
that, as computer scientists, they have a moral duty to defend from
corruption?
You wanna see shill? Here:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070417181027290
"Speaking of plots thickening, back when Maureen O’Gara published her stalking
article, I received an email from Jeff Merkey in May of 2005, claiming to have
been involved: “If you are wondering who gave MOG your address and who tracked
you down, well, guess who? Now that you have been exposed, my task is complete
here.” I have no way to verify if the claim is true, of course. It may be like
bombings in the Middle East. How do you know if those claiming responsibility
are being truthful? I mention it because someone using the nym basicdistrust
whom the locals on SCOX Yahoo! message board seem to think is Merkey just
posted a rant about me, which ended, “Death to Linux! Hell to dishonest
paralegals!!” I take that as a potential threat against my person, actually.
Just in case anything happens to me, you’ll know where else to begin looking
for clues in SCOworld and its environs."
Some more (from Microsoft and its shilling firm Waggener Edstrom):
"As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David & I have spoken with
Maureen O'Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the story. She has
agreed to not attribute the story to us....
Tactics: ...
* Inform Maureen O' Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John
Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval
received from BrianV to proceed)
* Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for
this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil
[Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O'Gara said she was
going to call them so it looks better coming from her.
* Issue "buddy mail" to target press list at the time of the announcement and
begin to proactively call-down to editors immediately after announcement made.
Owner: davidmar"
Watch the whole page. It's criminal stuff that reminds you just why Microsoft
should be considered a criminal organisation. Why doesn't the 'mainstream
pres' cover this? The answer is probably contained in this page too: Microsoft
owns the press.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows.
~Linus Torvalds
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.29 1.10 0.90 5/253 600
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiWlmkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4ctQCgop3zuKOAKWoBM8v/BLnVhIbA
ovYAmgN1EdWjTV740tyMjj2G/2LCz83+
=IOGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
